Friday, November 27, 2009

"CNN Leaves it There"

Jon Stewart began his show last night by introducing arguably unimportant topics such as the "big game" last night while a video of a gay protest is on the screen. He harps on the fact that CNN is always "leaving it there" and postponing important discussions while they have a full twenty-four hours to talk about said important topics. Stewart goes on to poke fun at CNN for fact-checking an SNL skit in which Fred Armisen plays Barack Obama, claiming to have done nothing since taking office. CNN delivers a massive report on this skit and found that while many of the president's initiatives have not moved forward, he has in fact done something since taking office. The detailed approach CNN takes to fact check a comedy show while featured speakers on this show throw out numbers without any sense of validity is deemed comical. John Stewart continues by showing several instances of CNN guests saying spurious things and introducing made-up statistics without being asked where their numbers came from or countered with facts. Despite these horrendously inaccurate claims, the hosts of CNN simply "leave it there." Stewart is mainly criticizing the lack of fact checking seen in the media's discourse on politics, though he hints at their use of time and judgement.

In academic discourse, the vital - as opposed to superfluous - events would be the ones heavily analyzed. Because academic discourse makes use of the educated people in whatever the proposed issue is, it is more than just two people who have an opinion. As the objective of public discourse is to entertain, viewers leave less and more incorrectly informed after watching shows like CNN. Public discourse is easy, as academic discourse seeks to further the discourse rather than split it.

Sacred Language, Spoken Language

Upon entering the screening for this film, the fact this movie centered around the Hebrew language was the extent of my background knowledge. I was unaware of the tensions that existed as Hebrew transformed from a religiously sacred language to an everyday, common spoken language. The subtitles offered little help as I spent the entire movie trying to wrap my head around the concepts presented. Although I took little from the film in the way of true understanding, I did gain some knowledge about the differing relationships many from Jewish descent have with the Hebrew language. Each speaker interviewed brought something unique to the film, and I tried to take down the most striking things said by each speaker.

I missed the name of the first male interviewed, but his parents spoke both Russian and Yiddish. However, he only heard and spoke Hebrew in the home. He never celebrated Shabbat or any other traditional Jewish holidays even though he grew up with the Bible serving as a fundamental element of his childhood experience. I remember him talking about how some grew angry at the fact that the Bible was being used to explain geography and archeology. This is one example of how the Hebrew language was beginning to be used outside of religious contexts. He ended with commenting on the existence of Hebrew, saying "without Hebrew, there is no rebirth of the people." This man rejoices over the victory of Hebrew, as it has managed to be successfully revived, but fears the impoverishment of the language.

The second speaker, a lady by the name of Michal Govrin describes how she lost her family, and with them, her faith. She spoke of Tel Aviv, which I now know to be the second largest city in Israel. Michal informs viewers of a six-day war resulting in the erasure of an entire culture. She claims that only the Talmud, a central text of mainstream Judaism, saved the people from complete destruction. Mrs. Govrin also hints at some conflicts with Christians who said they were “true Jews, true Israel.” Michal's interview was followed by a song that was nothing short of confusing.
However, it seemed to evoke a strong emotional response from fellow viewers, many who were of Jewish descent and/or understood the language. The song ended, and 'hmms' and 'ahhs' of approval were heard all around.

The parents of the third female interviewee came from a family Egyptian Jews. she used the words dynamic and supple to describe the way the Hebrew language is spoken presently. She clarifies that the sacred language, or the Hebrew she heard growing up, is not as supple as the Hebrew spoken today. As a writer herself, she loves Hebrew with a passion. She references the Hebrew she loves as being the one used to translate children’s books. However, she can’t bear to read the new, contemporary translations - it's synthetic. The sacred language is no longer a museum piece; it has been toughed, spoiled. She claims that this is the result of Hebrew literature.

Roy Greenwald was very religious as a child, and often went to the synagogue. He was taught as a child to embrace the sacred language, Hebrew. Learning to kiss the Torah, Roy "put the verses in [his] mouth and memorized them." Greenwald says something really interesting: the danger of Hebrew, its beauty too, is when instead of being a prayer it turns into politics. He draws similarities to the Yiddish language. Apparently is a similar language but does not represent the same things the sacred language does. He argues that sometimes Yiddish holds on to stronger meanings of words that Hebrew has let go of because of political/military reasons. For example, there is one word in Hebrew that means security, while the similar Yiddish equivalent goes even deeper and defines trust. New knowledge to me, Yiddish was a “banished language” ultimately sent with so many of its speakers to the gas chambers. It was spoken by two-thirds of Hebrews before the war.

Etgar Keret spoke of how Hebrew is a language that at one point ceased to be a spoken language. He, as a son of Holocaust survivors, says the language is part of Israeli identity. For Etgar, the tension between the slang and the sacred language is absolutely fascinating. For reasons I am not entirely sure of, Mr. Keret relates more to Eastern European Jewish writers than Israeli writers who describe a reality he doesn’t feel a part of.

Yitzak describes his relationship with Hebrew in a more abstract sense. He describes that for some, Hebrew is a language and, for others, an idea - usually of Christian origin. Yitzak says that writing in Hebrew is an act of passing on a legacy, like writing in Spanish. Hebrew is a good example of the legacy that he’s received, "like a gift wrapped in gold," and the legacy that he will pass on. Yitzak grew up in an educational system that mystified the Bible, while excluding rabbinical Hebrew text. He then presents a more optimistic view, claiming "a language that destroys 'the sacred' can just as easily construct it."

Shimon Adaf's parents came from Morocco, wanting to master the Hebrew they heard around them. However, they soon realized there was another Hebrew - the one spoken in the synagogue. At the age of 5 while in the synagogue, Shimon heard men singing the Song of Songs, and realized this was a new Hebrew, a sacred Hebrew. He says that one can easily lose himself in the sacred, and this was an important moment in his life. Shimon tried to put the sacred Hebrew and the spoken Hebrew in to different categories, but found it very difficult. The more he tried to suppress the Hebrew of the prayers, the more the thought came. Shimon saw this when his first poems were translated into English and German. Language is powerful and translated can lose some of that power.

Haviva Pedaya describes a difference between the language she hears and the language she speaks – there is conflict, a struggle. She says the tension begins in kindergarten and continues through school. For this reason Haviva was silent growing up, at times she was virtually mute. She was so afraid of saying the wrong things thus disrespecting the sacred language that she was "pregnant with words" until she finally started publishing. Writing has given her the release she needed.

Zali Gurevitch was an especially entertaining character. He considers himself taking part in a language game, a game of Hebrew. Zali calls it a game of beginnings. Hebrew allows for the combination of modern and archaic in a "thrilling" way. It is Zali's belief that in order to create a new Hebrew culture, you have to move from a sacred language and sacred culture and – not change it - but revive it, kick-starting it again to create new genres and new ideas. Because it is the mouth that breathes and speaks, it is through language and the sound that resonates that we understand the meaning. Zali considers himself lucky to be able to take apart in the language that is Hebrew.

Michal Naaman says that with Hebrew, you can't say anything natural or authentic because the words were so elevated, precious, and sacred. He mentions diaspora, a word that many of the speakers before him also referred to. I did some research and found out that a diaspora is any movement of a population sharing common ethnic identity. While refugees don't always settle in a new geographic location, diaspora refers to a permanently displaced and relocated collective. Over time, remotely separated communities tend to vary in culture, traditions, language and other factors. The last vestiges of cultural affiliation in a diaspora are often found in community resistance to language change and in maintenance of traditional religious practice. After learning this, I could make sense of the frequent use of this word throughout the film.

Overall, the film was well made. If I could change/improve one thing, it would be a suggestion made by those in charge of Visions&Voices with regard to background reading. I would have been able to make more sense of the film if I had some previous knowledge about Hebrew and its status as both a sacred and a spoken language. This being said, I still found many of the personal stories very interesting. Even without the background information, the important role of Hebrew in the lives of those interviewed was apparent.