I'm always falling in love with the wrong people

general literature

revolutionary yiddishland: a history of jewish radicalism by alain brossat and sylvie klingberg

east end jewish radicals, 1875-1914 by william j. fishman

there is nothing so whole as a broken heart: mending the world as jewish anarchists, ed. cindy milstein

no masters but god: portraits of anarcho-judaism by hayyim rothman

with freedom in our ears: histories of jewish anarchism by anna elena torres and kenyon zimmer

the jewish anarchist movement in america: a historical overview and personal reminiscences by joseph cohen

horizons blossom, borders vanish: anarchism and yiddish literature by anna elena torres

crisis, revolution and russian jews by jonathan frankel

yiddish revolutionaries in migration: the transnational history of the jewish labour bund by frank wolff

immigrants against the state: yiddish and italian anarchism in america by kenyon zimmer

memoirs, biography, and primary sources

forty years in the struggle: the memoirs of a jewish anarchist by chaim leib weinberg

twenty years with the jewish labor bund: a memoir of interwar poland by bernard goldstein

gustav landauer: anarchist and jew, ed. paul mendes-flohr and anya mali

anarcho-syndicalism by rudolf rocker

the london years by rudolf rocker

anarchism and other essays by emma goldman

an anarchist rabbi: the life and teachings of rudolf rocker by mina graur

emma goldman: revolution as a way of life by vivian gornick

articles

'principled diasporism': folkists, zionists, and the meaning of doikayt by michael casper (this one is hard to find- i can supply a pdf)

"the other invisible hand: jews and anarchists in london before the first world war" by paul knepper (2008)

"zionism and its jewish 'assimilationist' critics (1897-1948)" by robert s. wistrich

"from diaspora natioalism to radical diasporism" by allan arkush

"the bund abroad in the postwar jewish world" by david slucki

"the invitation of doikayt: mystical anarchism and the jewish left" by andy izenson

"retrieving tradition? the secular-religious ambiguity in nineteenth century german-jewish anarchism by carolin kosuch in the book negotiating the secular and the religious in the german empire

Billy Wilder’s Sunset Boulevard (1950) is probably the most movie-besotted movie of all time. Start with the premise. Gloria Swanson, a silent-film star whose career was derailed by the talkies, is Norma Desmond, a silent-film star whose career was ended by the talkies. Her butler-chauffeur, Max, turns out to be a once-acclaimed silent-film director and Norma’s ex-husband. He’s creepily–and brilliantly–played by Erich von Stroheim, a once-acclaimed silent-film director who’d been reduced to playing character parts, mostly Nazis in World War II-pictures.

The most meta scene comes shortly after screenwriter Joe Gillis (William Holden) takes up residence in Norma’s decrepit mansion, where he serves as a combination amanuensis/boy toy. He tells us that Norma throws regular movie nights, just for the two of them; Max is projectionist. The repertoire, of course, is her own films. We see a bit from one of them, a scene where the young Norma’s face is illuminated by candles.

Peter Pan edited by Anne Hiebert Alton (2011)

(sorry to interrupt joke post but) this is true!

Children not clapping did happen too, (and some were even expected to have hissed, which was later written into the 1928 playscript and 1911 novel). But my all time favourite anecdote about it is from Pauline Chase (who played Peter)'s intro to Peter Pan's Post Bag 1909:

Children love to clap their hands at the play because then they feel that they are really part of it, and you can see them holding their hands poised ready to seize an opportunity. Their great chance is when I ask them to clap their hands if they believe in fairies, and so save Tink's life. But they are very wrathful if any one claps who has the reputation of being a cynic, and once there was quite an uproar in the front row of the dress circle because of a girl who clapped. Those about her pulled down her arms angrily. "How dare you clap," they cried, "when you know you don't believe in fairies!" There was one dreadfully hard-hearted little boy who came to the theatre not to clap. That was his object for coming, and he came round "behind" to tell me so in the middle of the play. His teeth were firm set. "I won't clap," he said doggedly; "I'm not going to clap." And when the time came he didn't clap; above the clapping of all the others I could hear him shouting from a box, "Peter, I'm not clapping."

TEA AND SYMPATHY (1956) - Vincente Minnelli

Robert Anderson’s Tea and Sympathy debuted on Broadway in 1953 to glowing critical acclaim. Fittingly, this reception scared the living daylights out of Hollywood, especially those involved with the Production Code Administration (PCA). Popular plays naturally attracted Hollywood’s attention, and this one, centering around Tom (John Kerr), a private school student who faces allegations of homosexuality and receives intimate support from a teacher’s wife, Laura (Deborah Kerr), posed a “major problem” – namely, that homosexuality and adultery were forbidden under the Production Code.

According to TEA AND SYMPATHY’s PCA file, sure enough, several studios inquired about adapting the hit, and as expected, the PCA detailed numerous Code violations from the get-go. In fact, PCA head Joseph Breen wrote Production Code co-author Martin J. Quigley in October 1953, “It is our considered judgment here that this is, possibly, one play wherein we will be compelled to withhold any consideration for it. If the basic element of the story is changed, and the ending is rewritten, then, I fear, they will have no story.” But MGM was willing to take the risk, and the studio ultimately paid Anderson $100,000 for the rights – and to engage in an inevitable battle with the PCA to adapt TEA AND SYMPATHY (’56). (According to a 1954 Variety article, the playwright stood to earn $300,000 more if he could deliver a PCA-approved script.)

Quigley proposed handling the play’s suggested homosexuality as they did with THESE THREE (‘36), based on Lillian Hellman’s play The Children’s Hour, in which a homosexual love triangle was replaced with a heteronormative one. That obviously wouldn’t work here though, nor would Robert Anderson let it. In a story conference with the play’s Broadway director, Elia Kazan, and others in October 1953, Anderson outlined the minimum requirements he’d accept of any screenplay based on his work: Laura had to offer herself sexually to Tom and his troubles, including an attempted suicide, had to stem from accusations of homosexuality.

As Anderson insisted in a note: “It would be unacceptable to the author that the charge be tampered with or compromised so that the boy be accused of being a ‘sissy,’ and the clear-cut issue of homosexuality be glossed over.” But as much as Anderson tried, overt acknowledgment of homosexuality on-screen simply wasn’t allowed in the mid-1950s. As a result, MGM, the PCA and Anderson went back and forth for a year discussing and rewriting the story, tossing about many suggestions, including one in which Laura’s husband assaults Tom but he finally stands up for himself, and another positing Tom as a “non-conformist.”

By April 1955, the revised script for TEA AND SYMPATHY included an epilogue that takes place years later in which Tom returns to the school to find a letter from Laura, now divorced. In her note, she explains the repercussions of their actions and chastises Tom for inaccurately portraying their ‘romance’ in a book he wrote about his school years. By this time, changes had also been made as to not explicitly blame Tom’s issues on accusations of homosexuality; however, the PCA still felt an “inescapable inference” of that in the story. Thus, the organization refused to approve the script. MGM filed an appeal, to no avail, prompting a page by page review of the story focusing on insinuations of homosexuality. Following this intense process, MGM got the OK to proceed – as long as the picture was filmed precisely as written.

But the issues didn’t end there. The Catholic Legion of Decency, which had voiced concerns previously, proposed numerous changes to Laura’s closing letter, including moralizing statements that she answered Tom’s cry “unhappily, the wrong way” and that she’s taken “much needed comfort in the thought that we have both chosen to learn” from their misdoing. The only suggestion MGM accepted was the line, “I was so pleased to read that you are married.” Perhaps still miffed, the Legion bestowed TEA AND SYMPATHY a “B” rating, meaning “morally objectionable in part for all.” At least it wasn’t condemned!

While critics noted (and some denounced) TEA AND SYMPATHY’s toned-down modifications to make it more palatable for the screen, many still praised the picture as an impactful, sensitive adaptation. The New York Times also observed that it seemed the Code was starting to relax as the publication applauded the PCA’s wise “willingness to be appreciative of the integrity of the drama.”

Like, you go from this:

To this: