Your email is not valid
Recipient's email is not valid
Submit Close

Your email has been sent.

Click here to send another

Schlocky Horror Picture Show

The Possession, starring Matisyahu, fails to live up to the potential of Jewish horror films

Print Email
Related Content

100 Greatest Jewish Films

Schindler’s List is astoundingly stupid, Inglourious Basterds is cartoonishly potent, and more in our list of the greatest Jewish movies of all time

Ulmer’s erstwhile colleague Curt Siodmak supplied Universal with the most popular monster of the early ’40s, namely the Wolf Man. (“Images of devolved animal-men, often possessed of the wolfish traits prized by the Nazis, were striking facets of horror pictures during the war years,” film historian David J. Skal notes.) Siodmak also came up with the story for Son of Dracula (1943), a grimly flavorsome movie—directed by his brother Robert—that reversed The Black Cat’s premise. In the first Universal horror film to be set in the United States, a triumphalist, lebensraum-seeking vampire sets out to infect innocent America with his Old World contagion. Robert Siodmak made no further horror films but he did reference Hitler in his two subsequent movies: In Cobra Woman (1944), the sinister dance performed by the sarong-wrapped dictator of Cobra Island (Maria Montez) is greeted with an unmistakable sieg heil salutes, while the killer in Phantom Lady (1944) is a megalomaniacal artist who links himself with the great criminals of history.

While Jewish comic-book artists contributed mightily to the horror comics of the early ’50s, some of which specifically alluded to the Holocaust, it was not until the ’70s that notable horror films by Jewish filmmakers begin to appear. William Friedkin directed The Exorcist in 1973, a year before Mel Brooks travestied the genre with Young Frankenstein. Throughout the decade, David Cronenberg created a mode known as “body horror.” In 1980, Stanley Kubrick made The Shining (a movie that some exegetes have read as a Holocaust allegory and others as a movie referring to the Native American genocide); two years later Steven Spielberg produced Poltergeist (which, in its original cut, explicitly evoked the massacre of Native Americans). Schindler’s List uses the formal language of the horror genre as developed by Hitchcock’s Psycho. More recently, Eli Roth, who played the Bear Jew in Quentin Tarantino’s Holocaust fantasy Inglourious Basterds, has made a career out of cheap, purposefully vile shockers (Cabin Fever, Hostel, Hostel II), and Darren Aronofsky’s Black Swan has a number of horror and Jewish elements—including the generational conflict that was the motor of much American-Jewish drama.

Black Swan draws heavily on Roman Polanski’s Repulsion (1965). A child Holocaust survivor, Polanski has made only one movie on the subject, The Pianist, but, in addition to Repulsion, he has directed several horror films: The Fearless Vampire Killers (1967), a singularly bloody version of Macbeth (1971), The Tenant (1976), The Ninth Gate (1999), and most significant, Rosemary’s Baby (1968). The Fearless Vampire Killers paraphrases a famous Jewish joke—someone turns a cross on a vampire only to be taunted “Es vet dir gornisht helfen!” [that’s not gonna work]—while Rosemary’s Baby is a kind of dybbuk in reverse: The heroine is not possessed by the spirit of her dead lover but by the devil’s child; rather than exorcise her, an Upper West Side coven headed by a Jewish doctor ensures that her pregnancy will come to term.

What about the version of An-Sky’s Dybbuk made in Poland in 1937? It’s a bit of a stretch to call this stately drama a horror movie, although the 1979 telefilm of the An-Sky play, made with the State Yiddish Theater in Warsaw, had a definite whiff of Transylvania, as when the possessed protagonist appears to be serenaded by a werewolf while stumbling through a foggy graveyard. As steeped as it is in the past, An-Sky’s Dybbuk does suggest that, for Jews, horror is less supernatural than historical and communal. The primal fear that The Dybbuk evokes is not simply the terror of demonic possession but also of excommunication. Even the dybbuk is frightened by the possibility of being cut off from his fellow Jews for all eternity—a terror that only works in a Jewish context.

The Exorcist not only terrified the world at large but had a deep and sustained meaning for Catholics, observant or lapsed. A shock closer notwithstanding, Possession is highly unlikely to make a comparable impression on Jews. By objectifying Jews as exotic others rather than presenting them as subjects, the Raimi production eliminates the precise element that would have been most powerful for a Jewish audience: We are possessed by our dybbuk, however you want to allegorize it. Clyde’s anxiety and the tension within his broken home would have been immeasurably heightened if his family were confronted with a repressed aspect of their own past. The movie would have been stronger still if that were a shared heritage—Jews haunted by a lost tradition or the burden of Jewish history.

***

Like this article? Sign up for our Daily Digest to get Tablet Magazine’s new content in your inbox each morning.

1 2View as single page
Print Email
Alan Chaprack says:

Owl Jolson it ain’t, I’d bet.

Seriously? A Jew in a key movie role is not news. I doubt you would have written the same graduate-thesis of a film review if Matisyahu hadn’t originally been a Hasid. That still doesn’t mean he or the film deserve to have the weight of (dum dum dum) “The Portrayal of Jews In American Cinema” hung around their necks.

marjorie ingall says:

Smart review. I wondered (since I will not be SEEING this film, what with being a big chicken) how much of The Possession reflects current parenting anxiety — LOOK WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU GET DIVORCED! Look at what happens if you’re NOT a helicopter parent! And also, since the girl looks to be about the same age as Linda Blair in the Exorcist, I wondered whether the film trades in parental discomfort about tween girls’ sexuality.

Barbara Smith-Mandell says:

Very helpful review–both of the movie and of the history of Jewish themes in horror films. As an employee of the publisher of the book The Dibbuk Box, I’d like to offer one clarification. The author (and current owner of the artifact) is director of the Museum of Osteopathic Medicine, which is in the same town as Truman State University but is not connected, although the TSU Press published the book. And the book, incidentally, is the story of how the owner acquired this artifact, investigated its background, and collected stories from previous owners. And the book includes an afterword by Howard Schwartz, a scholar of Jewish folklore, who explains how all the past owners got it wrong (and not just the spelling). I’ll probably see the movie, although I am a big chicken. My curiosity may overcome my chickenness, and I really like Kyra Sedgwick.

Bret LaGree says:

A Serious Man (acknowledging the old Coen/Raimi connection) addresses a dybbuk explicitly in its prologue, and then at great metaphorical length in the body of the film. Perhaps it’s too existential in suggesting an abyss of alienation as self-negating to qualify as a horror film but it’s (to me at least) as culturally relevant as its inverse precedent: The Big Lebowski.

Yeah, that’s what I thought. Being Jewish is scary enough, all by itself!

Jayson2 says:

Why would anyone care about living up to the ‘potential of Jewish horror films’? Why would anyone want to take pleasure in watching such idiocy in the first place? If you really want films that live up to the potential of Jewish horror films, spend some time watching the archived footage of Auschwitz-Birkenau, Belzec, Treblinka, etc. That should do it.

Anonymous says:

Yeah,this is just a money movie. Real horror is what our ancestors suffered and the thought of it happening again in another form.

I saw Polanski’s Fearless Vampire Killers years ago. Though paraphrased, I recall, the actual line uttered by the Jewish vampire when confronted with a cross was, “Boy have you got the wrong vampire!”

I was pretty sure that the Rabbi was speaking in German not Yiddish. Unless the two languages are similar in everything, i was translating it in the movie theater without the guy telling me what it meant. (Took 2 German classes) That was the only real question I had about the entire thing.

I was pretty sure that the Rabbi was speaking in German not Yiddish. Unless the two languages are similar in everything, i was translating it in the movie theater without the guy telling me what it meant. (Took 2 German classes) That was the only real question I had about the entire thing.

I think the only dybbuk in this film is the ghost of a Hassidic Jew playing the role of a Hassidic Jew. Mattisyahyu shaves his beard, cuts the peyos and loses the yarmulke only to get a role of a hassidic Jew with a beard, peyos and yarmulke. I don’t know whether this says something about Mattisyahu or about American culture in the content-starved 2010s. Maybe it’s saying that we’ve replaced the real world with a carnival fun house full of haunted mirrors.

2000

Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Thank You!

Thank you for subscribing to the Tablet Magazine Daily Digest.
Please tell us about you.

Schlocky Horror Picture Show

The Possession, starring Matisyahu, fails to live up to the potential of Jewish horror films

More on Tablet:

Henry Roth Slept With His Sister and His Cousin

By Adam Kirsch — Now that you know the novelist’s incestuous secrets, is his newly reissued ‘Mercy of a Rude Stream’ quartet worth reading or not?