Having a Laugh

Back in the day, when my children were young, I would sometimes join them when they watched certain programmes on Children’s TV. One of these was ‘Zehu-Zeh’ (That’s It), which tried to amuse, entertain and educate by means of little skits, songs and quizzes. Let’s face it, most of the programmes on Children’s TV were noisy, gaudy American imports, with little or no educational content, though of course Sesame Street was the exception that proved the rule.

Now that we’re undergoing a period when there are few programmes anywhere – whether for adults or children – that are not noisy, gaudy as well as being full of violence, tension, murder and mayhem, it has become increasingly difficult to find anything on TV that is enjoyable to watch (if you are over sixty and slightly out-of-step with current trends).

So it was with a sense of curiosity mixed with hope that I started watching the current revival of the erstwhile children’s programme, Zehu-Zeh. It was brought back in order to raise general morale at this difficult time of Coronavirus lockdown. It is broadcast in the evening, which means that it is certainly not intended for children. The actors participating in the modern version were also involved in the original one, though they are now understably somewhat older and less agile but still recognizably themselves and still able to hold a tune and even sing in harmony, thank goodness. As they did then, even now they still seem to have a penchant for cross-dressing, which they do very well, adding an extra touch of humour to the show.

This time round, though, the focus is less on education and more on entertainment, and to be more specific, humour. Sometimes the script is better and sometimes worse, but the five main participants are still consummate actors and know how to deliver their lines to maximum effect. In a recent episode there were some excellent examples of what can only be described as biting political satire that had me laughing out loud and hastening to repeat the gems I had witnessed to my nearest and dearest.

The various much-hyped films and TV series involving tension, high-speed car chases, action and violence are not my cup of tea, and I continue to resist all enticements aimed at getting me to watch them. At a time when the whole world seems grim, grey and dark such fare is not what I need to lighten my mood.

And so, with disaster lurking around every corner, my only consolation is laughter, and I salute all those who are endeavouring to bring us some joy and relief from the grim reality of life.

Keep up the good work, chaps, and more power to you in continuing to keep the laughter flowing.

‘Orlando’ Revisited

I read ‘Orlando’ originally many years ago, when I first ‘discovered’ Virginia Woolf and the fascinating world of the Bloomsbury Group – the coterie of artists, writers and intellectuals that coalesced around her and her husband, Leonard Woolf (who was Jewish). I eagerly swallowed every word she had ever written, as well as her diaries, collected letters and  the many works about her and the other members of the group. She and many of them lived in the Bloomsbury area of London, in those heady interwar years, hence the name. ‘Orlando’ was one of Virginia Woolf’s books that I read at the time, and I remember not being greatly taken with it, although, as always with her, the prose was rich and impressive. I simply didn’t feel that the book had the kind of narrative impact that I had come to expect.

As the result of some words of high praise written by a friend, I decided to reread the book, and found that my initial impression was not too far wrong. This time round I paid more attention to the writing (even to the highly idiosyncratic punctuation) than I had in the past, and found myself being irritated time and again by the knowing tone adopted by the narrator, the constant asides, parentheses, notes in the imaginary margin and the altogether overbearing and patronising tone in which the tale of the individual known as Orlando is told.

In fact, the story of the imaginary character, who is at first male, then female and lives through several centuries of British and European history, is the hook on which the book is predicated, but is not really the crux of the book, even though he/she constitutes the title. The book is rather an opportunity for the author to take the reader on an intellectual journey through British history, British literary fads and fashions, and British manners and mannerisms, especially those of the aristocracy and upper classes, while displaying her encyclopaedic knowledge of those and other subjects. For good measure she throws in musings about philosophy, gender identity and the nature of artistic rivalry which is all well and good but doesn’t do much to stimulate the reader’s interest.

To be quite honest, I found the entire tone of the book tedious, and because it also had a soporific effect on me it took me far longer than usual to get to the end, as I was constantly overcome by an insurmountable urge to sleep (maybe this should be recommended as bed-time reading, even though I read it in daytime). What I found particularly annoying was the constant ‘nudge, nudge, wink, wink’ attitude of the narrator which takes the form of comments, asides and playful forays into some kind of false intimacy between reader and author.

Virginia Woolf dedicated the book to her friend, fellow-writer and possible lover, Lady Ottoline Morell, and it is a possibility that the tone of the book is in some way an echo of that writer’s style, and may even be some kind of love-letter addressed to her. There are also in-jokes and oblique references to contemporary (and possibly rival) writers and thinkers, among those I managed to identify were D.H. Lawrence, T.S. Eliot, Maynard Keynes’s wife and the Hogarth Press set up by Leonard Woolf. On the brighter side, I found a scene set in the Marshall and Snelgrove department store in Oxford Street particularly evocative, though various parts of London at different times in its history are described with great vivacity.

The book may have been considered revolutionary at the time it was published, in 1928, but its general tone today strikes this particular reader as laboured, pettifogging, pretentious, patronizing, pedantic and priggish.

 

TOTAL BALONEY (Quatsch mit Sosse) (Shtuyot Bemitz in Hebrew)

The CD with the title (in German and Hebrew) ‘Total Baloney’ was given to me some time ago by the Association of Former Residents of Central Europe, and when I finally got round to watching it I found myself taken back to the kitchen of my mother and other ‘Yekke’ relatives, back to the enchanted land of nostalgia, to the tastes and aromas of yesteryear, and to a time of innocence and memories (though not always fond).

The short film contains interviews with people of Yekke origin and demonstrations by them of the food that was cooked and the meals that were eaten in the homes of Jews originally from Germany and the surrounding countries who now live in Israel. Their manners and mannerisms, the way certain foods were prepared, the importance of how the table was set, the focus on minding one’s table manners as well as various other aspects of cooking, baking and eating were treated, at times seriously, at others with humour, but always with affection. Some people proudly displayed the handwritten recipe books their mothers or grandmothers had used. That reminded me that a few years ago my sisters and I took our late mother’s handwritten recipe book and published it for the whole family, translating her German recipes into Hebrew and English for the benefit of her descendants in Israel and abroad.

It was heartwarming to see elderly ladies (and some gentlemen) donning sturdy aprons and rolling their sleeves up to cook traditional dishes such as the red cabbage so beloved of many Yekke families, or sharing memories of the hated spinach many were forced to eat in childhood because it was considered healthy. Many other likes and dislikes also came to mind. Among the latter was the prevalence of apples in every possible kind of dish, whether savoury or sweet. That was also a bane of my own life as a child, since my mother – who was a consummate cook – found it necessary to accompany every main course with apple sauce (the apfelmus I dreaded finding on my plate at every Friday night dinner).

 

Cakes and pastries were also an important component of the Yekke diet, and one particular segment shows the various stages involved in the preparation of the legendary Black Forest Cake, with something I had never encountered before – an ingenious wire device for slicing the cake into two equal halves. Many Yekkes shared their fond memory of whipped cream (schlagsahne) as an accompaniment to cake. Another fond memory that arose in several interviews was the ceremonial way birthdays were celebrated, with a humorous procession, a birthday table laden with gifts, and a general air of merriment and rejoicing.

An additional touch which served to reinforce my enjoyment of the film was its accompaniment by various Schubert lieder, which were of course beloved by all (or almost all) Yekkes. The songs chosen seemed to fit exactly to the spirit of the speakers as they demonstrated the preparation and consumption of food in an atmosphere of tranquillity and harmony, and always with a touch of dry, Yekke humour.

One person reminisced fondly about the paucity of spices and condiments used in typical Yekke cooking, and which she claimed did not usually exceed five. There seemed to be a general consensus that no self-respecting Yekke housewife would contemplate using garlic in the food she prepared for her family, considering that salt and pepper, onions and parsley provided all the flavouring necessary for a tasty meal. The idea of introducing coriander (whether cooked or raw) or any other ‘exotic’ flavour to a dish was anathema to the Yekke palate.

Potatoes also occupied a prominent position in the Yekke kitchen, doubtless due to their prevalence in Germany, and the general reluctance to embark on getting involved in the slightly more complicated process of preparing rice. Thus, potatoes in one form or another, whether as salad or in their boiled or fried incarnation, accompanied almost every meal.

If you’re curious to see what caused me to enthuse about the traditional Yekke kitchen, the film is available on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9dn6J8x_5U

Go ahead and take a look. You’ll enjoy it, I guarantee.

Them and Us

 

There has always been a certain divide between rulers and ruled. That is the way of the world, whether in ancient Mesopotamia, the ancient Land of Israel, ancient Greece and Rome, the various nations of Europe and all over the world. The relatively recent attempt (in historical terms) to introduce an element of fairness into the system has had its successes and its failures, whether in the shape of democracy or some form of socialism, but there is no getting away from the fact that countries have to be governed, and some people seem to feel the urge to govern them.

Modern western societies have sought to elect the people who govern them by means of a system that is considered equitable and fair, namely democracy. Representatives of segments of the population or of specific regions are elected by ballots cast on a universal basis, supposedly guaranteeing equal representation for all, with rule by the majority being generally accepted as the best solution.

So in theory, as the American Declaration of Independence states, all men (and women by now) are considered equal. We’ll disregard the fact that at the time that Declaration was made neither women nor black people had equal rights, and it has been a long, hard struggle to achieve that. But the principle remains that essentially every individual is considered to be equally valuable to society, and each person’s voice has the right to be heard.

In Israel today, so the theory goes, there is no entrenched ruling class, such as there once was in England, France, and other European countries. Even in those countries it is considered appropriate today for the government to comprise representatives who have been democratically elected. When Israel’s founding fathers established its ruling institutions the emphasis was on the equal distribution of wealth, the absence of class distinctions, and the need for society to care for the weak and the needy (thus following traditional Jewish values). In fact, in the early days of the State of Israel very few people were wealthy, most of the political leaders lived in modest circumstances, and several remained (or later became) members of a kibbutz (where the principle of the equal distribution of goods was paramount).

During the course of its existence the ethos underlying Israel’s social fabric has shifted away from the principle of equality. Today it is considered acceptable, albeit not entirely desirable, to have a society of ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots,’ and despite the attempts to provide for the economically disadvantaged, this divide seems to be becoming ever more firmly entrenched.

Another overriding principle underlying most modern societies – Israel included – is that of justice, the concept of equality before the law, that no one can be considered above the law. And this brings us to painful recent events which have further deepened the existing rift within Israel.

The Coronavirus pandemic has disrupted societies all over the world, causing lockdowns and economic hardship for many. The U.K. has recently been riven by a scandal over the unsanctioned cross-country drive (supposedly to obtain care for his child) by a senior government advisor, thereby breaking the lockdown rule which the rest of the country has been obliged to obey. The Prime Minister has refused to condemn that act, and so the concept of equality before the law is destroyed.

The President of the USA has openly declared that he will not wear a mask, even though this is the medically recommended way of avoiding transmission of the disease. He, too, seems to consider himself above the rules which ordinary folk are required to follow.

England and the USA are not alone in having political figures who flout the rules which the general public is supposed to observe. At the recent Pesach (Passover) festival, at which it is customary for families to eat the festive meal together (the Seder), for the first time in Israel’s history families were forbidden to congregate, and many people were forced to sit alone or communicate with their relatives by electronic means (Zoom, etc.).

It did not take long, however, for the news media to publish photos of the Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, enjoying the Seder with his son who does not live under the same roof as him. To make matters worse, the President of Israel, Ruby Rivlin, was also shown in the company of his grandchildren, who do not share his home.

Israelis expressed outrage at this blatant demonstration of hypocrisy by the very leaders who had called on them to observe the strictest terms of social isolation. However, instead of calling for their resignation, the public seems to have shrugged its shoulders and simply carried on. At least the strict lockdown restrictions were eased soon afterwards, whether prematurely or not time will tell.

But the most flagrant example of spurning the principle of equality before the law is being provided by the current Prime Minister. After evading justice for years by a series of legal and political ploys, Benjamin Netanyahu was finally brought before a court of law on charges of corruption, bribery and misappropriation of funds. Any other politician so charged would have resigned (or at least committed suicide) long since, but not Mr. Teflon. After his long fight against being brought to justice, just before he entered the courtroom he managed to bring additional shame on Israel’s political structure by launching an unbridled attack on the police, the media, the judicial system (comprised of judges appointed by his government) and the Attorney General.

In a normal country he would feel obliged to resign at this point, but he shows no intention of doing so, and will continue to sling mud in every possible direction until, so it seems, he has succeeded in undermining all the institutions that have been put in place to protect our society from the ravages of demagogues who seek to remain in power at all costs.

Democracy is still maintained, at least in theory. The only problem lies in the inability of the electorate to see through politicians’ lies and chicanery; and to realise that there’s one law for them and another for us.