What's in a name?

In my last post, "Superman as Metaphor," I briefly discussed how some Jewish actors changed their names in Hollywood. I feel that this topic merits further discussion. Jewish actors changed their names because having a Jewish-sounding name could hinder their careers. Unfortunately, anti-Semitism made some people feel they needed to hide their ethnic background. When I read this in Kaplan's book, I immediately thought of the film "Gentleman's Agreement." This is a 1947 movie starring Gregory Peck and John Garfield and discusses anti-Semitism. In the bonus features on the dvd my mom has, there's a little documentary on various aspects of the film and the story it tells. Sadly, no Hollywood studio wanted to have anything to do with the production of this film because they tried to avoid touchy subjects in their films (they didn't want to rock the boat by discussing anti-Semitism). Finally the film was made. One of the actors in the film, John Garfield, was Jewish - his birth name was Jacob Garfinkle, but he changed it. Having seen this bonus feature in "Gentleman's Agreement" that discussed various Jewish actors changing their names, I was not at all surprised when I read about the name changing in Kaplan's book.

Understanding this portion of "the Jewish experience" (15) makes me also understand why the creators of Superman chose a very "American," boring name for him - Clark Kent. This name has no ethnic identity; it's blah. Frankly, I think that it's unfortunate that many Jewish actors changed their names. Personally, I think Jacob Garfinkle is much more interesting than John Garfield.

Superman as Metaphor

Arie Kaplan's book "From Krakow to Krypton" discusses the role many Jewish individuals played in the comic book industry from its inception. I discovered as I read the first section ("The Golden Age") that the history of comic books is quite fascinating. I must confess I never thought comic books or their history were something that would be interesting, but I have been pleasantly surprised. In fact, I think I would enjoy reading some of the early comic books that are discussed in this section.

Kaplan discusses many aspects of the early comic book industry in this section of his book, including the creation of Superman and how Superman has "recently been seen by pop culture scholars as the ultimate metaphor for the Jewish experience" (13). There are several reasons for this. One is that there is a similiarity between the extermination of people on Superman's home planet and the Holocaust (14). Another is that Superman's real name is Kal-El which approximately translates to "All that God is" in Hebrew (15). A third reason is that the name Superman uses to hide his true identity is Clark Kent, which is an average sounding American name, devoid of any ethnic identity. This third reason is a lens through which to view the Jewish experience because some Jewish people did change their names to hide or downplay their Jewish heritage (anti-Semitism was a problem for Jewish people, including in the area of employment). The example Kaplan mentions is that of Hollywood actors altering their names (15) . I believe the idea of Superman being used to think about the Jewish experience has some merit. However, I feel that it's a stretch to an extent for a few reasons. For starters, the Holocaust had not yet taken place when Superman was first created. Secondly, what exactly is "the Jewish experience"? While there are many aspects of historical life that can be used (and Kaplan does) to discuss this, I do not think it is fair to use such a blanket term. "The Jewish experience" would not have been the same for everyone, and using broad general terms such as that always make me nervous because some important things will be overlooked.

Sam's Mistress

"Cookalein" is a story in Will Eisner's graphic novel "A Contract With God." This story follows the characters in a Jewish neighborhood in New York and their summer vacations. Some characters go out into the country on vacation while others stay in the city. In one family, the wife and children go out to the country and Sam, the husband and father remains in the city. While his family is out of town, Sam spends time with his mistress, Kathleen. In the scene where Sam and Kathleen are together, Kathleen is portrayed wearing a cross necklace and nothing else. I believe Eisner meant the wearing of the cross to convey to the reader that Kathleen is not Jewish. Obviously Eisner felt it was important for the reader to understand that Kathleen is not Jewish.

In spite of what Eisner meant in having Kathleen wear a cross, I read more into it. As a born-again Christian, it had another dimension to me, even if that is not what Eisner intended. Based on her actions (Kathleen is having an affair with a married man and wants him to leave his wife for her) I question whether Kathleen is a Christian even though she is wearing a Christian symbol. I view her as someone who was perhaps raised Christian or "nominally" Christian but never made her faith her own. I wish Eisner had developed her character more because I'm curious about Kathleen's beliefs in light of her actions. I'm not suggesting anyone judge Kathleen's actions; I just wonder about her. Although she has a very small part in the story, she was the most interesting to me.

Interpretation

For our most recent class, we read "A Contract With God." For each of the stories there are many points of interest. However, I am going to focus here on the story from which the book takes it's name. At the end of the story a little boy named Shloime Khreks finds the stone on which Frimme Hersh had documented his contract with God so many years earlier; Shloime signed his name under Frimme's, "thereby entering a contract with God" (Eisner 61). Some of my classmates were debating how the final page is meant to be interpreted in light of the drawing Eisner has done. Some people felt that because of the lamppost with the very bright light illuminating the picture the point is that the boy will not make the same mistakes as Frimme and his contract with God will end positively. Others believed that the dark shadow covering Shloime's face (continuing from the previous page after he discovers the contract with God stone) is meant to state that he will succumb to similiar problems. My intepretation of the picture is that the bright light represents Shloime's excitement at entering the contract with God. He idealizes what this will mean in his life as Frimme Hersh did in his youth. While Eisner never actually states what Shloime thinks the contract will mean, I believe the reader is meant to assume that he has a similiar understanding to that of young Frimme. What Shloime believes to be a positive way of living will eventually fall apart when at some point he perceives God as not holding up His end of the contract. I like how different people can interpret elements of Eisner's story in different ways.

Post 1

First Post!