Can Helen Mirren ever be an authentic Golda Meir?

Disclaimer. This is nothing directly to do with BBC bias. I’m sneaking it in under the heading “anything else that takes our fancy.’ I’m apt to stray off-topic.

*******

Criticising Jews online acts as a purgative. It opens the floodgates and releases pent-up ordure that’s been held in ever since Jeremy Corbyn’s downfall made it unfashionable to express antisemitism. Now they can let rip.

The topic is Brendan O’Neill’s article in yesterday’s Spectator about Maureen Lipman’s ‘AsaJew’ remark concerning Helen Mirren’s suitability to portray Golda Meir. The headline writer has titled it Maureen Lipman’s ‘Jewface’ criticism of Helen Mirren isn’t fair. 

Look below the line if you have access. Do you agree that something whiffy has been unleashed? Not overt antisemitism, but unabashed anti-Maureen Lipmanism, a form of antisemitism-by-proxy.

Another disclaimer: I haven’t a clue about the veracity of Brendan’s opening salvos but I trust his sincerity.

a) For instance, I don’t know what “Mo” has actually said  - maybe there was some sort of qualification to her remark - but let’s assume she really thinks no one but a Jew should play a Jew.

b.) I don’t know how well Tamsin Greig portrayed a Jewish character in the sitcom Friday Night Dinner (because I never watched it.) 

c.) I don’t know whether the actress playing Joan Rivers (who was neither Jewish nor the actual Joan Rivers) persuaded the audience to suspend its disbelief because I never saw the play/film/ show, nor (d.) can I say whether or not any of the other ‘Jewface’  shows that Brendan cites had managed to convince us  - by employing the deceptive art of ‘acting’ - of the authenticity of the characters they were pretending to be.

Anyway, Brendan O’Neill took a lot of trouble to give a variety of examples of actors playing characters they’re not, such as able-bodied actors playing disabled characters and heterosexuals playing homosexuals and vice versa, which, he posited, is, or has been up till now, acceptable.

“isn’t the point of acting precisely to portray someone other than yourself? It surely negates the art of acting to suggest that people should only play roles they have a direct identitarian link to. That Jewish characters should only be played by Jews, lesbian characters by lesbians, autistic people by autistic people, What next – only folks with a few gangster crimes under their belts should audition for a Scorsese movie?”

Except that some of the actors who did play ‘characters they were not’ subsequently became overcome with remorse and regret, and have actually apologised retrospectively.

However, isn’t Brendan arguing that no decent actor should be disqualified from having a shot at playing any character they choose, as long as they are good enough at their craft?

That sounds fine to me. If it’s a case of how good an actor one is, surely Helen Mirren has proved herself to be pretty well equal to the challenge; and the Gold Meir prosthetics look jolly convincing as well. But, as certain commenters have pointed out, there are limits. Black people playing white people and vice versa is quite an awkward one. Or, transplanting black characters into historical situations in an inauthentic and ahistorical manner looks like 'diversity taken quite a few steps too far.' See Bridgerton (I haven’t watched that either)

There’s also something of an apologetic tone running through Brendan’s piece. It reads as if he’s afraid of coming across as an antisemite -  because he isn’t an antisemite - but he is aware that any criticism of Maureen Lipman will be deemed antisemitic.  Sadly i suspect this is what has happened, and is what has given the green light to all that pent-up anti-Lipman sentiment that was there all along, patiently waiting for ‘permission to happen’ and I think he knew that. And I bet he hesitated before submitting the piece. 

The point I’m making is not about whether Maureen Lipman is right or wrong. On the face of it, it seems she’s a bit more wrong than right. But, and it’s a big but, look at the borderline antisemites that have come out below the line. They’re acting as if Brendan O’Neill has given them permission to metaphorically evacuate their bowels over Maureen Lipman.

Although on the face of it, she seems wrong on this one, and a bit ‘OTT triggered’, I wonder if there is something intrinsic within ‘Jewiness’ that’s ethereal and subtle, and not easy to fake. It’s not as clear-cut as the black and white issue,  but some non-Jewish actors will be less effective than others at convincing us that they’re actual Jews. 

One example of someone doing a pretty good job of playing a convincing (too convincing) Jew is Eddie Marsam, a non-Jew, who played the Jewish taxi-driver character in Ridley Road. He was so convincing in character that he received “relentless antisemitic abuse”,  and if that isn’t an endorsement I don’t know what is.

Off its rocker

Can anyone help explain why I feel compelled to watch these TV debates? It must be something to do with morbid curiosity; I wish I could break the habit. I’m not going to re-watch the latest torture vehicle, but I’ll take the words of Sarah Vine, Allison Pearson, Kate Hoey and Iain Dale even if his name does contain an extra i. (Or do we pronounce it Ee-ay-an) Fiona Bruce was appallingly biased. The audience was Momentum-heavy.

Anyway, the way the media encourages and inflames the baying mob has a chilling effect on free speech. Anyone in public life now needs to approach their every utterance with extreme caution. A society that dictates that lies must be accepted as truth and a man only has to say he’s a woman to make it so, albeit perhaps a ‘woman with a penis’, leaves many of us wondering if we’re alone in noticing that “the king is in the altogether.” 

Of course the millennium generation or whatever they’re called, the ones who run things, won’t even know what I’m referring to - which reminds me of the BBC expert wheeled in to opine on two election videos ( the one featuring “Beattie” and the slick Momentum video that got into trouble for stealing content from Coca Cola.) He said “I had to Google the character (Beattie) as well as the actress”, (Maureen Lipman) whereupon it dawned on me that these woke young pundits have no understanding of even relatively recent popular culture, which almost explains why someone (other than Anne Marie Morris) - I forget who - got into trouble for “using the’n’ word”. It transpired that this terrible word occurred within the out-of-date idiom meaning "some fact of considerable importance that is not disclosed—something suspicious or wrong." This bonkers scenario is concomitant with the new rules concerning trans issues, whereby everyone has to go along with the Orwellian type convention that lies are truth, and if we transgress we’re toast, remorselessly gobbled up by the mob.

Boris has a choice. 1) Apologise for his past use of the terms ‘Watermelon Smiles, Picaninny, a new one on me “Tank-top Bum-boy’ and of course ‘letterbox and bank robber’, or 2) he digs in deeper and sheepishly defends these terms by  providing context, none of which will be listened to let alone understood by the history-resistant mob.

Boris’s natural ability to express himself verbally in a colourful and cartoonesque way is part of his charm. Maybe it is his charm. 

How can he explain that those ill-fated watermelon picanninies were part of his cynical and satirical response to being subjected to some crude propagandistic displays laid on by the organisers of a Commonwealth tour as described here about three years ago, by Rod Liddle. 

I got Boris Johnson into trouble once, without meaning to. The two of us had been driven hither and thither across Uganda by Unicef in the back of an expensive Mercedes 4×4 to gaze at the fatuous projects they had delivered for the benighted natives. We had been chosen for the trip because we were perceived, rightly, to be unconvinced by the efficacy of some western foreign aid programmes and even less convinced — in my case, at least — by the UN. 

Our chaperones were two humourless Scandinavian women who ferried us both from one remote village to the next: ‘Look, here we have built a women’s drop-in centre,’ one of them would remark proudly of a breezeblock edifice in some pitiful settle-ment which primarily needed a road, a school, some industry etc. But the Unicef women had an agenda and the Ugandans had bloody well better get on board with it. At each village the natives would be rounded up to meet us and explain how exceptionally grateful they were. 

Shortly before we arrived at every stop, the Scandi harridans would smear thick layers of insulating cream on themselves, and then don rubber gloves and face masks. They urged us to do the same — there is bilharzia here, they said, and perhaps worse — but we declined. It seemed staggeringly rude. And so that is how these matrons greeted the natives each time — stepping out of an air-conditioned limo which cost the GDP of their entire country and shaking hands encased in rubber gloves because the black people are all diseased. And then lecturing them about women’s rights. 

It eclipsed satire. This seemed to me racist, patronising and as fine a case of cultural neo-imperialism as you could ever wish to find. After we left one settlement and climbed back in our limo, Boris remarked, with acid on his tongue: ‘And so on to the next bunch of grinning piccaninnies.’ It was one of the most apposite statements I have ever heard; anti-racist in its intent, mocking the attitudes of the Unicef staffers and the purpose of this charade. 

The left-wing press couldn’t care less. They want to see Boris as a racist and that’s the way they’ll see him. If they say it’s racist, then so it is.

As for the letterbox thing. Everyone will by now have seen the talking letterbox on QT. The one who hijacked the topic of antisemitism to rant at will, unimpeded by madam chairperson. This was one of those ‘you couldn’t make it up’ moments, but even worse was the way the panel and the audience took her side. Look at Chuka Umunna! What a creep!

 Why didn’t anyone dare to ask the question “is this ridiculous garb in any way normal?” and “How can this letterbox be an English teacher?”  or “Has this country gone completely off its rocker”

“How can I put my faith in a leader when that same leader likens me to a letterbox?”

This audience member, who is an English teacher, criticises Boris Johnson for previous comments he made about Muslim women in burkas. #bbcqt pic.twitter.com/yzswGBIl7J

— BBC Question Time (@bbcquestiontime) November 21, 2019

No-one would dare. The truth has departed. 

Mel and Mo

JBW 2018 - Melanie Phillips and Maureen Lipman in conversation from Jewish Book Week on Vimeo.

I don't intend to resort to posting videos in this blog, but this I couldn't resist. If you are interested in the topic, please watch it on Vimeo.  If not, scroll past.

Random observations

A couple of days ago I read an article on one of the inside pages of the Times, headed “Doctors tell of chaos in Gaza’s hospitals.” It was written by Gregg Carlstrom and it looked as though he had been influenced by Julia Mc Farlane’s graphic BBC piece about doctors’ hardships in Gaza during Operation Protective edge because it appeared soon after McFarlane’s report had been fairly heavily promoted by the BBC.

Here’s a short excerpt:

“Even before this summer’s six week war, which killed more than 2,100 Palestinians and injured 12,000, Gaza’s health service had been crippled by an eight year Israeli siege.”

Unlike McFarlane’s article, which featured UK doctors whose trip to Gaza had been funded by certain charities with questionable political affiliations, Carlstrom’s piece contained statements and anecdotes from doctors and staff of the Shifa hospital.

Having read the above quoted excerpt, which appeared near the beginning of the article, Carlstrom’s casual readers may have missed the latter part in which a slight between-the-lines hint that the Palestinians themselves bore the best part of the blame for the situation could just about be detected.

However, a significant little phrase in there leapt out, as significant little phrases are apt to do.

“.........Gaza’s health service had been crippled by an eight year Israeli siege.”

What’s wrong with that? Firstly, if Gaza’s health service has been crippled by anything, it hasn’t been crippled by Israel; and secondly Israel’s import restrictions are a necessity and not a siege. 

This widely held, health service related misconception  is one of Yolande Knell’s party pieces.

 “ from the very first day of the seven-week conflict the BBC misled its audiences by stating or implying that shortages of medical equipment in the Gaza Strip are a consequence of border restrictions imposed by Israel. On no occasion has any effort been made to clarify to BBC audiences that the permanent shortage of drugs and medical supplies in the Gaza Strip is the result of ongoing disputes between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority and that Israel does not place any restrictions whatsoever on the entry of such items into the Strip.”

Having seen Carlstrom’s article I Googled around a bit, as you do, and I found a few other questionable things that seem to keep slipping into his pieces. For instance:  

“All this has been triggered by an act that even Israeli security officials believe was probably not approved by top members of Hamas in Gaza or Qatar but was more likely the work of a rogue Hamas branch in Hebron: the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teenagers.”

Can you tell what it is yet? It’s one of Jon Donnison’s pet theories, that Hamas was unfairly blamed for the murder of the three Israeli teenagers.  I understand he’s still sticking to it.

On CIF Watch they’ve been highlighting another of Carlstrom’s pieces for the Times, 

the one about the apartheid bus.  It had to be corrected because the strapline “Bus ban on Palestinians ‘reeks of apartheid state’ and the caption: 

“Palestinians are to be banned from all Israeli buses in the occupied West bank for security reasons, in a move that critics say “reeks of apartheid.”  ” 

was misleading ( and incorrect). 

I must say the sleight of hand trick of headlining an article with a wildly emotive quote from  “critics” is  shared by many *innocent face* impartial journo-magicians these days. Recently Robert Tait, another habitual between the lines Israel-basher, used an inflammatory quote from Mahmoud Abbas in a Telegraph piece. 

“Israel accused of 'act of war’ after closing religious site”  Yes, but by whom? By someone who accuses Israel of committing an act of war merely by its very existence, that’s who.

We all know how fond Mahmoud Abbas is of making inflammatory accusations. He does so  in a devil-may-care manner, casting them wide in the hope that some will fall upon fertile ground, which they usually do,  and exploiting them as a click bait headline is naughty.

Incidentally, doesn’t it strike anyone else as completely preposterous that the latest contrived Palestinian victimhood spat is reported sympathetically (to Abbas) by the media? I mean, a Palestinian shot a Jew who had the audacity to campaign for the Jews’ right to pray near the  “third holiest” site for Muslims and the most holy site for Jews.    

All we’ve heard for the last couple of days is how crucial it is that the  Al-Aqsa mosque is open for business in time for Friday prayers.  Remind me, which religion’s ability to pray in a specific location is deemed “essential”, and which is forbidden altogether - and who is it that is  saying :

"This dangerous Israeli escalation is a declaration of war on the Palestinian people and its sacred places and on the Arab and Islamic nation," said Nabil Abu Redeineh, Mr Abbas's spokesman. "Harming the places sacred to Muslims and Christians is a red line. The state of Palestine will take all legal measures to hold Israel accountable and to stop these ongoing attacks."

I can’t understand how anyone can’t be incredulous at that. It’s reminiscent of the accusation that Israel (with a substantial Israeli-Arab population) is an apartheid state, from the mouths of anyone who blithely accepts the Jew-free policy that Abbas freely boasts he intends to implement in his future Palestinian state. 

I see Maureen Lipman has made a few headlines this week. She’s fallen out of love with the current Labour party. I’m not sure I agree with the way she has gone about explaining why she’s taken this stand. Many of the below the line comments were depressing,   not just below the Standpoint article, but some of the comments under several mainstream press reports that decided to covered the story were blatantly antisemitic. Quite surprising that some weren’t moderated. I was surprised to see that Guido’s Maureen Lipman article had fewer antisemitic BTL comments than normal for that site, unlike the Jenny Tonge piece, which takes Order-Order’s commentariat back to its familiar kindergarten level. 

The Guardian’s comment section is full of ignorant anti-Jewish remarks as is the Mail’s. Divided in politics, united in antisemitism.

I didn’t think much of this week’s Apprentice. It’s being strangulated to death by its own format. The next task should be to put it out of its misery, I’d volunteer to project manage it humanely. 

Oh well, just a few observations. 

Some reviewers thought Lordy fired the most interesting candidates last week; premature ejectulation. But not for me. I was glad to see the back of them. Sarah seemed to have those plastic red-lips clenched between her teeth all the time. I had a pair once and they’re no fun. You can’t speak or smile in case they fall off. 

Anyway, she and the Alvin Hall impersonator were as dull on Dara’s aftermath show as they were on the show proper. 

The project manager was surely Jessica Hynes. Was it Jessica Hynes? I won’t tell anyone.

As for the tasks. How bad can ‘tasks’ be? Very. And how dull?  The superimposed deadlines make the tasks in the Apprentice and all ‘task’ based programmes virtually impossible to complete; successfully or at all. 

That was good. And it was on the BBC.