The first impression made by Lone Scherfig's "An Education" is that it is a deft throwback to Britain's serious comedies from its Carnaby St. era - you know, Silvio Narizzano's "Georgy Girl" (1966) and Desmond Davis' "Smashing Time" (1967) - with Peter Sarsgaard doing a light, uncanny riff on the irresistible cad/rascal/scamp (pick your own word) that the late Alan Bates routinely played during that period.
Initially, it's fine.
But then its story kicks in. The plotline is familiar to any art-house afficionado who has been exposed to the trailer for the past couple of months: A wonderful 24-year-old actress named Carey Mulligan plays a precocious, a tad pretentious but extremely likable 16-year-old named Jenny who plays the cello in her school orchestra and is light years ahead of the boys her age - and also her parents (Cara Seymour and Alfred Molina), for that matter. The sophistication she seems to studiously affect is actually the real thing. Jenny has only two things on her current agenda - to keep her virginity until she is 17 and to get into Oxford.
Then she meets the big-talking David (Sarsgaard, commanding a subtle British accent here), an older man who sweeps her off her feet and exposes her to the good life. In what amounts to a shameless teen fantasy, Jenny's parents (who are slightly opportunistic, at least her father is) actually approve of David and endorse the relationship. So far, so good. Well, sort of. But then, in what seems like a gratuitious touch, David tosses off the fact that he's Jewish. Then, a scene or two later, he admits that he's something of a crook - a scam artist with expensive tastes to feed - and he rationalizes his penchant for ripping off people. As a real-estate player, he purposely places black families in apartments and condos in order to scare off other tenants/owners, an underhanded way to get their property. "Schwarzes have to live somewhere," he shrugs.
And exactly why did David have to be Jewish? Hmmmm.
Alas, "An Education" is now at a point of no return.
A caring teacher (Olivia Williams, drabbed down way too much) is worried that Jenny might abandon Oxford for David - that he is ruining her life. The school's headmistress (Emma Thompson), meanwhile, is turned off by David's Judaism and, in a rant, reminds Jenny that his people murdered Christ. Less troubling than her intolerance is the film's curious attempt to justify her anti-Semitism by continuing to indict the now wildly unappealing David, revealing each of his secrets/skeletons, one by one.
When Jenny sees entrepreneur David escorting a black family into an apartment building and asks about it, he shrugs, "Schwarzes have to live somewhere."
Schwarzes is not a nice word.
And so, a film that starts out as a darkly affable little affair quickly degenerates unnecesssarily when its heroine's trust is violated and the ethnicity of her lover is unnecessarily made a crucial part in her betrayal.
Note in Passing: Many thanks to Irina Bragin, for the mention in her insightful piece, "British Film Gives ‘An Education’ in Anti-Semitism," written for Jewish Journal.com.
David (Sarsgaard) indulges Jenny (Mulligan) in the illusion of romance. She's wised up, not educated.
15 comments:
Great essay, Joe. I saw the film and had a different (typical) take on it, but now I have nothing to add. You hit on something that I've read in none of the reviews so far.
hmmm... I wanted to see it and now maybe I don't..
I guess the Sarsgaard character is Jewish because this is a true story and the real David was indeed Jewish, an associate of the notorious slum landlord Peter Rachman.
Wouldn't the real anti-semitism have been to pretend that David wasn't Jewish?
Yes, Jamie, a colleague of mine noted that the film is based on a memoir and that the real David was Jewish - or, at least, presented that way in the book. Nevertheless, that information/fact has a different impact when woven into the structurre of a narrative. Believe me, on screen, it seems utterly gratuitous. -J
I think you're wrong about the references to Judaism.
The story is as much about Jenny's coming of age as the coming of an age. This is London before it started swinging and what referencing anti semitism in a narrative setting achieves is to show how institutionalised racism was. It shows that the post WWII hypersensitivity to anything that could be perceived as anti semitic did not begin immediately after the Holocaust. Far from it.
It serves too to show too that her parents, also racist at the beginning, were willing to overcome all kinds of prejudices in the all consuming passion to marry her off which in turn strengthens the dilemma which Jenny was in.
To reference anti-semitism is not the same as being anti semitic.
Annie-
As I said, my problem is not with the film's references (or depictions of) anti-Semitism, but with the perception put out that it condones this form of prejudice. The movie seems to go out of its way to justify Thompson's anti-Semitic outburst.
Sorry Joe,
I just don't agree that it does. It uses her racism as a context but I fail to see where it condones her POV.
Annie- You know, sometimes great minds don't think alike. -J
I reviewed this film at blogcritics before wide release where it played here for a local film fest. It has gained in popularity. I noted the anti-Semitism mentally. I saw no need to include in a review of the film.
My question: if the shoe were on the other colored foot and the jilter were black and there was no mention of that what would critics say? Or with the large Pakastani pop in London and a "Paki" were dating her and no mention of that...then one would start to smell a rat.
As for the film, I loved it and Peter. I even rented "Shattered Glass" just to give him another looksee as an actor. I think he is the new Orlando Bloom. Except that he has a whole other register to work with.
And as I and others have pointed out "We think it was based on a TRUE story." Hello.
I think Joe B. is Jewish? Hmmm. Blacks and browns have been in the hot seat for a long time. Welcome aboard!
Heloise
Hi, Heloise-
First off, I, too, like Peter Sarsgaard. Wonderful actor - and he's actually pretty terrific in this film.
Secondly, perhaps I sound more harsh on "My Education" that I really am. It's just that it is one of the films lately that I've really been looking forward to, and for me, it was a thudding disappointment - admittedly, largely because of the anti-Semitism that seems to permeate it, botn on its surface and subliminally.
Third, to get personal, my mother was Jewish and my father was Catholic and I was raised Catholic. As a result, I am lapsed, an agnostic bordering on atheism. Too much info?
Finally, yes, I most certainly would have had the same negative reaction if the Peter character were black or Islam or even Catholic.
Again, my problem isn't with Emma Thompson's anti-Semitic rant but with my feeling that the film seems to justify it by going out of its way to paint Peter as a money-grubbing crook (and romantic lout).
But, then, I'm an equal opportunity cynic.
-J
Hi, Just saw the film and I think you are incredibly off base in just about every way. As others point out -- the anti-semitic character(s) are pointedly made to look foolish. The Jewishness is somewhat important b/c the David character is on the outskirts in part b/c he is Jewish -- they weren't accepted at Oxford. That's a point of the film that went way over your head. Also -- there was always a dark undercurrent as soon as she met David -- it's not as if the movie was a light, whimsical lark that suddenly got a bit dark -- it was there the whole time. I'm astounded at how much you missed in this movie.
I saw the movie last night and don't think it was was anti-Semitic. The gentile anti-Semitic characters (Emma Thompson) were made to seem small-minded and ridiculous. The complicated villain was, it is true, Jewish and perhaps villainous in ways that are more likely to be Jewish or at least reflecting some traits of a middle-man minority (Chinese in SE Asia, Armenian, etc.) --requiring keen intelligence, a certain lack of social rootedness, readiness to exploit new situations (the real estate block-busting, taking advantage of traditional British racism). And it very very rare, almost unprecedented, to see a Jewish villain in modern Western cinema, for both understandable historical reasons and because much of Hollywood is Jewish, and might be overly protective on that score. So "An Education" is highly unusual for portraying a Jewish villain. But the film makes not the slightest nod towards making him "representative" of Jews as a whole, -- he is clearly sui generis. And again, the anti-Semitic characters are made to seem stupid and small-minded.
Heloise,
I don't think a poster's ethnicity is relevant for a discussion. I think the competition you are trying to raise between Jews and "brown and black people" is disgusting and implicity racist. Also, if you think anti-semitism is a recent phenomenon as your last sentence seems to suggest, let me suggest for you a history book.
I thought the movie was anti-semitic because of how over the top the stereotypical features of the Jew were. The producers may claim it was based on a true story but I have never met such a loathesome Jewish strawman which seems to embody every dishonorable trait one can think of. He was a pervert in the bedroom, in many ways disrupting the pure British youth in the same vain as a Fagan character. He was a glib liar, a thief, an adulterer, a man who invokes the first person plural to speak about the tribe in unflattering ways ("we aren't as clever as you are"). The movie made me sick and quite frankly I think it should be called Fagan 2.0. What's hilarious is that people think they can keep inventing the same character with creative little pretexts and people won't notice.
Jamie,
Great point. The real anti-semitism would have been to pretend the alleged quasi-pedophile, thief, adulterer, serial liar, and charlatan wasn't Jewish. I'm sure the Jewish community would be up in arms over that denial of our history.
You know what WOULD REALLY be anti-semitic in my view. A heroic, straight-laced (no, not straitjacketed), paternalistic Jewish protagonist. Such defamation would be the REAL anti-semitism;)
David's use of the word Schwarzes relatively early in the film makes it clear what his character is. That is a harshly derogatory word.
Post a Comment