Discussing his gentile upbringing outside London during the 1960s, writer Nick Hornby (“High Fidelity,” “About a Boy,” “Fever Pitch”) recalls how the word “Jewish” was used interchangeably with “cheap” in the schoolyard, and how his grandmother would call him a “Wandering Jew” when he was restless.
British attitudes toward the nation’s now 280,000 Jews have advanced significantly since then. But the societal antisemitism of decades past figures prominently in the new film “An Education,” for which Hornby wrote the screenplay.
Adapted from a memoir by Lynn Barber, the film, set in the early 1960s, chronicles a British schoolgirl’s affair with a charming Jewish man many years her senior (played by Peter Sarsgaard). The man’s portfolio of unscrupulous dealings finances his extravagant lifestyle. Hornby recently spoke with the Forward’s Gabrielle Birkner about the film’s cast of complicated characters, and responded to those critics who have charged that “An Education” plays on antisemitic stereotypes.
Gabrielle Birkner: Some of the Forward editors and I were wracking our brains to think of other Jewish characters in your oeuvre — and we couldn’t come up with any. Was this the first expressly Jewish character to appear in your writing?
Nick Hornby: This was my first, and it obviously caused a great deal of anxiety. I developed the script, originally, with a Jewish director. We talked about whether or not to keep him Jewish, and we decided that it would probably be more offensive to excise his Judaism from the piece. Some of the things he does are not good, but it never occurred to me that it was stereotyping. I mean picking up girls at bus stops is not necessarily something that I associate with Judaism.
It wasn’t so much the picking up a girl at a bus stop that some have taken issue with, but rather the portrayal of the Jewish character as greedy and underhanded.
Well, I don’t think he’s greedy; I think he’s a petty criminal. This seemed to be an important part of the subculture of the late 1950s and early 1960s. A couple of the people he hangs out with — particularly someone who’s mentioned in the script, called [Peter] Rachman, who was a big Jewish gangster at the time — were part of the British subcultural life, so it felt accurate to me. I hope we’re beyond the point where you can only show ethnic and religious groups in a positive light.
The other issue is that there are a couple of characters that make antisemitic remarks in the film. And I can only think that some people are upset because we didn’t kill the characters that make antisemitic remarks — that they’re not actually punished within the film. … I think that people are not used to the idea that people go unpunished in movies. I think they might be more used to it in books.
You mentioned that you considered writing the Jewish character’s Jewishness out of the script. Why?
In a 90-minute movie, when you’re trying to deal with other things as well, you know that you’re going to have to be concise and elliptical about certain issues that are complicated and you just hope that people understand it. I mean clearly I got that wrong to a certain extent in that some people have taken offense.
The Jewish character, David, frequently employs the collective “we” when he speaks: “This is how we are,” and so on. Is he referring to him and his friend, Danny? Or is he referring to the Jews?
To the Jews? Oh my God, no. He’s talking about him and Danny. I’m very surprised that some people think that the “we” refers to the Jews, and I can see that that’s offensive. Of course, I regret that.
David makes his money, in part, by moving minorities into neighborhoods in an effort to scare away racist tenants, and buy up properties on the cheap. In one scene, we watch as he interacts warmly with a black family he is helping to relocate. Is this scene supposed to garner viewers’ sympathies in any way?
I think it’s quite clear that David has sympathy with the family that’s moving in, but he’s also using them in an unscrupulous way. He plays on other people’s racism, while at the same time he is not himself racist. He says to Jenny, “It’s not like they could rent from their own kind,” which, of course, they couldn’t at the time. So I think it was sort of a complicated and rich political moment.
Before embarking on this script, how much research did you do into the genteel antisemitism in 1960s London that we see onscreen?
I knew it was there, and I remembered what I remembered. [Growing up in the late 1960s], kids used to be called “Jewish” if they were mean with their money. And if you were restless and just wandering around the house, my grandmother used to say, “Sit down, you wandering Jew.” I don’t know why she said it.
Have British attitudes toward Jews — and how Jews are discussed — evolved significantly since then?
Yeah, I think that British attitudes have just become more sensitive, generally, to any ethnic group. I mean consciousness has been raised enormously. … And we live in a very properly multicultural society now.
On a different topic altogether, what do you think is the difference between literary fiction and commercial fiction? Your work seems to have succeeded in both arenas.
I think commercial fiction sells more. I think you notice if a literary writer writes three or four best-selling books in a row then they stop talking about him as a literary writer, and I think it’s as simple and as sort of banal as that. I always go back to Dickens. He wrote commercial fiction, and because that fiction has survived he’s now a literary writer because he’s part of the canon. But I don’t think it’s a distinction that would have made much sense to him.
You wrote extensively about soccer — or football, as the Brits say — in your memoir “Fever Pitch.” My colleague from Leeds would kill me if I didn’t ask you this: Who should Arsène Wenger manager of Britain’s Arsenal Football Club] pick up during his transfer window?
[Chuckles]
Am I saying his name wrong?
You ask very nicely, but I can detect the incomprehension. … Well, I wouldn’t mind Thierry Henry coming back on loan.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Cleveland Kidnapping, Elizabeth Smart and Us
Ethical Kosher Seal Stalls Amid Orthodox Opposition
Rama Burshtein Offers Rare Glimpse of Orthodox World
'War' With Ultra-Orthodox at Kotel? Bring It On
What 'Jews a Race' Debate Means for Israel
You've successfully signed up!
Excellent questions,Gabrielle. Hornby's telling comment, "I think we've beyond the point where we can only show ethnic and religious group in a positive light" clearly contradicts the statement that British attitudes have "advanced" since the 60's. Certainly Hornby's notion of "advance" means advance to the point where an ethnic and religious group like the Jews can be shown in a movie like his in a negative light, with full aprobation from the critics and the media. Thank you for your questions, which allow this man's prejudice, hypocrisy, anger and defensiveness to clearly manifest themselves. I hope this review will be seen and read. Irina Bragin
I sent this letter to the Jewish Journal of Los Angeles on December 8, 2009 Subject: Letter to Editor re An Education review 12.8.09 Dear Editor, Irina Bragin's review of the movie 'An Education' said everything I had been thinking but said it well and passionately. I grew up in England in the 1950s and although much of the artistry reminded me of my own town, home and education, the sudden announcement by David near the beginning that he was Jewish was completely anachronistic. No one would ever have introduced themselves as a Jew unless they had to explain some situation to a gentile. The word would have been 'Jewish' and even that spoken in the English apologetic style. On busses one lowered one's voice slightly when uttering the word. It was not due to fear of violence but due to a deep desire for acceptance, to blend in. Even if you were obviously Jewish, you didn't trumpet it; you knew in gentile areas that you were respected for blending in politely and also for being firm in your commitment to your people - the two went together. So when David introduced himself as a Jew, let alone made references to 'us' in the most negative fashion, the film lost its credibility. If he had been a more developed character perhaps, and not a caricature, if he had been shown as a 'barrow boy' who even then would have made being Jewish a comedy as he shouted out his wares, it may have been understandable, but as presented he was an implausible 1950s Fagin, without the pathos. Sincerely, Linda Hepner
There is no question that Hornsby's movie is anti-semitic. It fits in perfectly with the rabid anti-semitism that exists today in Britain. Depicting Jewish criminals exploting blacks is especially disturbing. It will lend credence to the sterotype held by many British young people that the Jews are a racist people as witnessed by Israel's alledged abuse of the Palestinians.
In light of the increasing violent attacks against Jews in Britain and the almost daily calls for boycotts and sanctions agfainst Israel, Ms Birkner's question asking if British attitudes have changed towards Jews is painfully naive. Doesn't she read the papers?
I came to this assuming the film wouldn't be antisemitic, but after reading it I have a very different impression. The characterization of minority characters as something other than perfect is of course fine, but the portrayal of a minority as fitting a negative stereotype without paying any attention to the related complexity is very irresponsible. The portrayal of his business dealings as criminal and unethical is bad, especially in that they involve him using black people to manipulate the real estate market and sow seeds of ethnic strife. This is is the antisemitic stereotype: manipulative, criminal, unethical, playing different groups against each other for your own profit, etc. It is especially a bad thing not only in light of all the supposedly pro-Palestinian violence against Jews around the world, but also in light of the increased antisemitism that has come from the economic recession which so many ignorant ignoramuses are blaming on the Jews.
All I can say is that it would have been worse had this film be made in any other European country. A French, Polish or German equivalent would have raised far greater concern.
---The Jewish character, David, frequently employs the collective “we” when he speaks: “This is how we are,” and so on. Is he referring to him and his friend, Danny? Or is he referring to the Jews?
To the Jews? Oh my God, no. He’s talking about him and Danny. I’m very surprised that some people think that the “we” refers to the Jews, and I can see that that’s offensive. Of course, I regret that.---
Were it not for this moment, this film would not be anti-Semitic. However, the idea that Jews pursue their own self-interests while everyone else pursues the common good is classically anti-Semitic. At this moment, the character's distinctiveness on account of his Jewishness and his distinctiveness on account of his criminality blend into one another. It is what is meant by the charge that the Jews killed Jesus.
In America, there is a separation between church and state, and, aside from the self-perception of some Jews, the Jews are seen as Americans who happen to be Jewish. In England, there is a unity between church and state, and, irrespective of how some Jews would like to perceive themselves, they are seen as Jews who happen to be British.
Harry Wachstein, A journalist asks questions to ascertain the response of the interviewee. Has nothing to do with the journalist's own knowledge base.
People are over-sensitive and paranoia. Its a movie take it at face value. When we walk down a street keep your head held high. Even if you are black and wearing loose jeans. So of the other comments shows their own signs of dillusion. They need to check their mind first.
This movie was an thorough dissection of aspects of English society in the early 1960s, and if anything was far harder on mainstream British ignorance about Jews than on Jews themselves. The Emma Thompson schoolmistress character, who considers that Christ's Jewishness is "propaganda" comes in for ridicule, as does the main character's father, who stumbles around denying that he is antisemitic. It is unfortunate that a film can't depict anyone Jewish as less than perfect without being accused of antisemitism. Rachman of course was a real-life character in the era portrayed, as is Madoff now. To expect that any character from a minority group should always be perfect would mean we could never have an accurate movie about Idi Amin, the Mafia, Fidel Castro, etc. Idealized, unrealistic portrayals like "Inglorious Basterds" are the real propaganda, not superb films like "An Education."
An Education is an amazing film. It is not anti-Semitic just because certain characters within the movie hold less-than-ideal views about Jews. The film is staying true to the story, its characters and the scope of the time, not contorting to fit into a contemporary ideal about one of the -- let's be honest -- peripheral plot elements. You can't accuse this film of being anti-Semitic; it's a story; these are characters, characters reflective of 1960s London. Films aren't meant to reflect how we believe people should act, they are meant to reveal truths within the world of a film through its characters. This film shows imperfections and flaws in society and human alike, and it does so in a jocular manner.
If we're going to call this movie anti-semitic, to suggest the film or its makers are symbolic of a movement against Jews, simply because a character reflects those ideas within the scope of the film, then every movie, everywhere, can be critisized for being racist or anti-something. Art doesn't always unveil a perfect image. It's often the reflection of flaws, a slice of history worth studying, reveling, and something beautiful -- if disconcerting -- in its own right. An Education is a beautiful film, character flaws and all.
An Education is an amazing film. It is not anti-Semitic just because certain characters within the movie hold less-than-ideal views about Jews. The film is staying true to the story, its characters and the scope of the time, not contorting to fit into a contemporary ideal about one of the -- let's be honest -- peripheral plot elements. You can't accuse this film of being anti-Semitic; it's a story; these are characters, characters reflective of 1960s London. Films aren't meant to reflect how we believe people should act, they are meant to reveal truths within the world of a film through its characters. This film shows imperfections and flaws in society and human alike, and it does so in a jocular manner.
If we're going to call this movie anti-semitic, to suggest the film or its makers are symbolic of a movement against Jews, simply because a character reflects those ideas within the scope of the film, then every movie, everywhere, can be critisized for being racist or anti-something. Art doesn't always unveil a perfect image. It's often the reflection of flaws, a slice of history worth studying, reveling, and something beautiful -- if disconcerting -- in its own right. An Education is a beautiful film, character flaws and all.
Re: harry Wachstein You're right, this is an ant-semetic film, a pretty blatant one at that. Please, though, don't use that as an excuse to cast doubt on the abuse of the Palestinians.
I found the movie, which I would have considered excellent, offensive, for stereotyping the Jew as a scoundrel. Why, Mr. Hornsby, would you have found it more offensive to leave out the obnoxious Jewish character than to include him? The movie would have played just as well without any ethic references. It certainly demonstrates a great insensitivity as an artist, on your part. Too bad!!
While An Education obviously depicts the anti-semetism of the time, it is explained by the up-bringing of Mr. Hornby, which is evident in his interviews. When lazy, he was called a restless Jew by his parents, etc.I feel he went overboard with the schoolmistress's remarks, which were totally un-necessary,but may well have been heard at Jesus College.
I was shocked that a movie, or the movie industry, would show a Jewish man in a negative light. We have seen priests raping boys, and Italian mobsters killing people, and certainly Muslims killing innocent people. Jews have always seemed untouchable and in a way, I don't think that is right either. The comments suggest this is a sensitive issue and that is why I think it is good. Get off the anti-semitism card and realize what the movie is doing - creating a reaction. Deal with it.
Making Peter Sarsgaard's character Jewish was completely unecessary, and would not have changed what the superficially apparent message of the movies was if he wasn't--but by making him Jewish, it changes the whole story--or adds a completely different dynamic--the jewish director is obviously a self hating Jew, or a moron
Presumably, the story of "An Education" is the coming-of-age experience of a teen-age girl. She is seduced by a man who is a thief, a racist and one who preys upon teen-age girls. Doesn't this material provide a sufficient basis for a movie? Oh, and the man is a Jew. Question: aren't Anglicans thieves, racists and perverts or are these character traits possessed only by Jews? If the answer to the first question is yes - as it is, then the answer to the second is no -also, as it is.
Given this, how is the basic plot of the movie advanced one whit by the fact that the scum-bag happens to be a Jew? I submit that it does not and that a decent movie with a compelling story is ruined by the gratuitious addition of a totally unnecessary injection of anti-semitism into a story which has nothing whatsoever to do with religion.
I also find the deceitful and self-servingly ignorant justifications of the writer to be insulting and unworthy of respect.
My neighbor in Kiryat Chaim, Israel, beat her children. I don't mean spanked or took a swat at their butts, but beat them. The children in turn did the same to their new puppy. There was no father around. She had the kids when she was a teenager. She had no job and was on the dole, which is the way she liked it. Her parents were not much better. Israeli jails are full of Jews who have robbed, raped, and murdered. Anyone ever heard of Bernie Madoff?
So, he has a character in his movie who is Jewish and turns out not so nice. Does that make Nick a Jew hater? I remember when "Bugsy" came out in the 90s. We Jews loved it. Why? Bugsy, although a criminal, was a tough Jew. No one called the director of that film anti-semitic. Think about it.
Firstly, I want to say how much I enjoyed the film "An Education". Secondly, I was intrigued by the significance of who drank tea, who offered (and in one case, didn't offer) tea, as well as who shared in the partaking of tea. Was this consciously done in the film, and could someone elaborate on the symbolism of drinking tea? Thanks. J. Goldstein