Shabbat
Reading List

Aparna Gopalan (news editor): Recently, I’ve been talking to my therapist about how the coming of the summer evokes intense feelings of “fomo,” or fear of missing out. Everything outside comes into bloom, but I’m still stuck indoors doing paid work, or house work, or care work, or just catatonic after all the working. But this year, I found myself with two weeks of precious personal time right before I (re)started at Currents, just as warm days were beginning to outnumber cold ones here in Boston. “How do I make the most of this time?” I asked my therapist. And like any good mental health practitioner, she helped me problematize my desire to optimize even this period of rest, asking me to explore the origin of the imperative to craft the perfect staycation. But along the way, she also gave me a decidedly mundane piece of advice, one that ultimately helped more than all the rest: get a guidebook. After all, what better way to assure myself that I would not miss any of the “best” spots to bike, walk, hike, eat, or lounge?

As soon as she suggested it, I knew the book I would get: A People’s Guide to Greater Boston by Boston natives and urbanists Joseph Nevins, Suren Moodliar, and Eleni Macrakis. While it’s still a guidebook—it’ll give you directions to Fenway Park, the Boston Harbor, and the Revolutionary War monuments that plague the city—A People’s Guide offers a very different experience of the Boston area than your standard tourist handbook. The authors seek to look at the city “from below,” in a perspective that privileges “the desires, hopes, and struggles of those on the receiving end of unjust forms of power.” To that end, even when the guide takes you to the usual tourist haunts, it’ll help you look at those spots differently.

So when I found myself once again at Boston Common, a park in the heart of downtown Boston, I walked in knowing the struggles that had forged the space. The Common was where Quakers, witches, and criminals were executed; it was also where 45 Native Americans were killed when 17th century English settlers annexed their land. Alongside religious and racial repression, the park was a site of class policing: working people who picnicked, gambled, and beat rugs at the Common throughout the early 18th century were soon driven away by the area’s wealthier inhabitants, who wanted parks to be for civilized leisure, not the lowly processes of social reproduction. Nevertheless, the rabble did not retreat quietly—the Common remained the place they gathered to protest the high cost of bread and the profiteering of merchants, and after the French Revolution, the streets around the park witnessed the largest victory celebrations anywhere outside Europe (much to the chagrin of the city’s ruling elite).

Despite my initial misgivings, I found that seeing the city through A People’s Guide didn’t just serve to depress me and make me hate all the spots I would otherwise have enjoyed (although it did so some of that—it’s hard to pick seashells on Castle Island, a beachy peninsula in south Boston, knowing that its titular “castle” was a prison for dispossessed Native Americans who were en route to enslavement in the Caribbean). Instead, the stories in the guide served to root me in place, and give me the sense of traversing time as well as space. I read the guide’s history of each spot on the train or bus ride over, then wandered around looking for signs of that past, and read the aftermath once I left: things like, that abolitionist meeting house is now a hotel; the bookstore that printed that bestseller of its time is now an office plaza; a parking garage now stands atop the headquarters of that socialist newspaper. Some of the places my eye would have just slipped by in the present seemed to have teemed with possibility once, and that made even a walk down a standard commercial street interesting.

I was only semi-faithful to my guidebook—ultimately, there were times I just wanted to get on a bike path and fly through the soft summer breeze for 10 miles without a thought in my head. What the guidebook did, though, was make the city around that bike path a mystery to me, something to wonder about and return to rather than just zoom by, a future destination rather than just scenery. One day, I’m going to do the book’s thematic tours to unravel some of those stories. There’s the “One Percent Tour” devoted to taking you to the shittiest rich people and places around (the stock exchange, Harvard Business School, art museums full of loot); on days you’d rather not be furious, you could opt for the “Bread and Roses Tour” of working class history landmarks, or the “Malcolm and Martin Tour” of the civil rights past and present, or the “Nature Tour” where you’ll see wooded trails as well as the city’s worst polluter (Logan Airport) and its most evil agro-capitalist enterprise (United Fruit Company).

I finished my staycation as much more of a Bostonian than I had been at the start, which (to my surprise) is a change for the better. And thankfully, this is not just a resource available to Boston residents! There’s A People’s Guide to New York City, of course, and there are guides to the Bay Area, Los Angeles, Orange County, and even Central Virginia. Whether you’re just visiting and want directions, or are looking to deepen your rootedness in time and place, these guidebooks are well worth a try.

Alex Kane (senior reporter): One of the key subplots in Israel’s horrifying bombing campaign in Gaza is Israeli officials’ insistence that their target is not Hamas, but rather another, smaller Palestinian militant group called Islamic Jihad. Nevertheless, in an attempt to project political and military importance, Hamas, the ruling party in Gaza that is currently responsible for collecting taxes and providing services, is emphasizing that they are in fact full participants in this round of fighting, even though they don’t appear to be firing any rockets. Hamas seems to want to have it both ways—by allowing Islamic Jihad to lead the firefight, they avoid direct retaliation from Israel, and by taking credit for participating in armed struggle, they preserve their own political legitimacy as the vanguard of the Palestinian armed resistance.

To the average American Jew who only pays attention to Gaza when there’s an armed conflict, this dynamic might be bewildering. American Jewish leaders have spent years calling Hamas an antisemitic terrorist group bent on Israel’s destruction. But this kind of rhetoric does absolutely nothing to further understanding of who Hamas is, the social context from which they emerged, and the political reasons for which they may be sitting out the fight right now.

To understand the full context behind why Hamas isn’t firing rockets, I recommend turning to Tareq Baconi’s 2018 book Hamas Contained: The Rise and Pacification of Palestinian Resistance. The book is a deeply researched chronicle of Hamas’s rise from Islamist social movement to a pioneer of armed resistance against Israel and manager of a Gaza under blockade. Well written, concise, and informed by a political commitment to justice and freedom for all, Hamas Contained provides an antidote to the American Jewish establishment’s hysterical renderings of Hamas and returns the group to the realm of politics, showing how Hamas is caught between the desire to hold on to power in Gaza and the necessity of being seen as a resistance movement. As more than two million Palestinians in Gaza continue to suffer from a devastating Israeli blockade that has only entrenched Hamas’s rule while further dividing the West Bank and Gaza from each other, these are critically important dynamics to understand. Baconi’s work is one of the best ways to start getting a grasp on the complicated entanglement of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Israel, and what it means for Gaza.

Cynthia Friedman (operations manager): I’m a big fan of cartoons. If I’m being honest with you, I’ll admit that I spend most of my lunch breaks rewatching episodes of a handful of shows that I’ve seen dozens of times over. Of late, I’ve been enjoying The Lucas Bros. Moving Co., streaming on Prime Video. Created between 2013 and 2015 by Kenny and Keith Lucas, two Black identical twin brothers who are comedians in Brooklyn, the show follows two Black identical twin brothers who are furniture movers in Brooklyn, also named Kenny and Keith Lucas. Each episode of the show’s two seasons is only 11 minutes long, and starts off in the regular world, such as in their truck, at their friend Jerrod’s bar, or out and about in the neighborhood. Then, over the course of the story, things get increasingly more otherworldly and fantastical. For example, in one of the initial episodes, a haunted AC unit turns their apartment building into an icy tundra, and they need to find a way to turn on the furnace in the basement to melt the ice.

The animated Kenny and Keith often move in lockstep rhythm together, and they are very chill. In dangerous situations or moments where a positive outcome seems hopeless, they are still level-headed and have made peace with any outcome. Even if this may in part be because they’re stoners, it’s honestly instructive to have an example of what it could look like to remain steady and calm—and even have a laugh—in the midst of a crisis. And across twists and turns, the show always lands them gracefully on their feet.

This is far from the only TV show—or the only cartoon show—in which the majority of the characters are Black: the leads, the side characters, and the “extras” who populate the background. But for the specific joy of its style of animation, its focus on insignificant, everyday encounters, and its casual forays into the mystical, The Lucas Bros. Moving Co. is a rare find and a lovely watch.

Mitch Abidor (contributing writer): As I grow older and older, and believe less and less in anything possibly changing for the better, I am more and more drawn to books on the heroic period of the Comintern—or more specifically, on the men and women who devoted themselves to the Third International. These radicals, believing global revolution was imminent, devoted their lives to the communist cause, traveling wherever they were ordered, plotting and organizing, training and leading expeditions and military forces. How glorious they were in their youthful madness, compared to the draining, hopeless slog of politics today.

Christian Salmon’s The Blumkin Project: A Biographical Novel is the sweeping tale of the short but fascinating life of the Russian Jewish revolutionary Yakov Blumkin. The book—based on years of research Salmon did after being inspired by mentions of Blumkin in Victor Serge’s Memoirs of a Revolutionary—makes clear that Blumkin’s path was a dizzying one. He started out as a yeshiva bocher and student of the Yiddish writer Mendele Mocher Sforim, but by his mid-teens he had become a member of the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries. At 18, after the iniquitous Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, he and a comrade assassinated Germany’s ambassador to Russia. Here his life became truly bizarre: Lenin told the Germans that the Bolsheviks had executed Blumkin, but in fact they had shipped him to safety. One day, he appeared in a café in Moscow; upon seeing him, the great poet Vladimir Mayakovsky exclaimed, “Zivoi!” (“He’s alive!”)—which became Blumkin’s nickname. (He was a friend of many of Russia’s finest poets, and a mediocre one himself.)

Blumkin became a member of the Cheka—the first Soviet secret police, led by the inflexible Felix Dzerzhinsky—and during the Russian Civil War he traveled in Leon Trotsky’s armored train, serving as his aide. But even this wasn’t enough activity. He attended the first Congress of the Peoples of the East in Azerbaijan, crossing paths with American journalist John Reed, author of the classic account of the October Revolution, Ten Days That Shook the World, just before the latter’s death from typhus. And on a mission to Turkey in 1929, Blumkin went to the island of Prinkipo, near Istanbul, where he visited the now-banished Trotsky and agreed to deliver a message to his family. After Blumkin’s lover informed on him that same year, he became one of the first to meet his end by way of a bullet in the back of the head in the cellars of the Lubyanka, the headquarters of the secret police.

Near the book’s conclusion, Salmon explains his interest in Blumkin, offering a moving tribute and a sad diagnosis: “I know now that I was clinging to Blumkin in an era that was so unheroic, the 1980s, an era of abandonments and betrayals of socialism’s ideals. That’s why this book is also the story of a failure: that of a generation, my generation, that wanted to change the world.”

Mari Cohen (associate editor): In the stories I hear from the incarcerated writers and sources I work with, the prison guard is a ubiquitous figure: As the representative of the carceral complex who most frequently confronts prisoners, the guard’s abusive actions exemplify the arbitrary cruelty that defines incarceration. It’s a delicate task, then, to argue that the plight of the low-paid and overworked correctional officer also deserves our consideration.

The investigative journalist Eyal Press takes on such a task with care in his 2021 book Dirty Work. In an intrepidly reported study, Press argues that the task of guarding prisons, like other morally compromised occupations from meat slaughtering to oil rigging, tends to fall to America’s marginalized populations. Working class people of color with limited job prospects bear the brunt of society’s moral disapproval, while the bourgeois consume the oil, eat the chicken, and vote to build new prisons, keeping their hands clean all the while. Press effectively contrasts the position of dirty workers—who often hail from small towns where the prison, the chicken plant, the military base, or the oil rig are the primary economic engines—with that of those in comparably compromised white collar industries, like tech or finance. These white collar workers, we come to see, have the economic leeway to quit in protest of invasive surveillance or financial corruption, but even if they don’t, they’re rewarded with social status for their work, not opprobrium.

Press takes the concept of “dirty work” from the sociologist Everett Hughes, who, after an impactful trip to postwar Germany, noted in a 1948 lecture that many well-heeled members of German society had publicly disavowed the shameful work of Nazi soldiers while remaining quietly grateful that someone was on hand to take care of the “Jewish problem.” Today’s dirty work, Press argues, also has an “unconscious mandate” from society’s “good people” who prefer not to have to know too much about the unpleasant tasks carried out in their name—tasks that are “necessary to the prevailing social order, solving various ‘problems’ that many Americans want taken care of but don’t want to have to think too much about, much less handle themselves.” The dirty workers, meanwhile, are left to experience “moral injury,” a term coined to describe combat soldiers’ trauma from committing acts they believe to be deeply unjust. A fitting rejoinder to the way that such work has been shielded from public view, Press’s book shines as a feat of reporting, entering the lives of the workers with novelistic detail and drawing the reader into the reality of the ethical binds they face, not to mention the illness and trauma they suffer from their workplaces.

At times, Press’s concept of “dirty work” feels a bit broad, straining under its imprecision. To what extent can the position of an undocumented immigrant who takes a meatpacking job after fleeing her abusive stepfather be compared to that of a young intelligence worker whose idealistic motivations for abetting the “War on Terror” fall away during his time as a drone operator? Press’s book highlights both stories, and successfully describes the real suffering both have experienced due to moral injury, but Flor, the slaughterhouse worker, appears to have been far more materially constrained into her position than Chris, the college-grad drone operator—not to mention that the factory farm slaughter of chickens, while appropriately condemned by animal rights activists, is a different matter than the extrajudicial assassination of humans. The story of Heather, another drone operator who joined the military as a way of escaping her economically depressed hometown, mirrors Flor’s a bit more closely. Nonetheless, such questions only illuminate the ethical challenges of determining individual accountability for harm for structural ills. (Could we go so far to say, for example, that cops are dirty workers? Press doesn’t take up the question directly, but I think he’d say no, given their high wages and historically high social status.)

The labor journalist Alex Press (no relation), in a thoughtful review in Jacobin, makes a fair point that by focusing on the “unconscious mandate” that society gives dirty workers, Eyal Press is too vague about the specific perpetrators of injustice: powerful bosses and politicians who often don’t represent the public will. Still, his framework does provide a hopeful jumping off point for broad solidarity. The many people implicated in the day-to-day operation of violent systems might be considered potential partners in dismantling them, rather than automatic gatekeepers of the status quo. And those of us observing such work while typing comfortably on our laptops ought to consider who in the system should bear the brunt of our political energies.

Josh Lambert (contributor): Part of what it means to be an American, lately, is to be a subject of curiosity and concern for people from elsewhere. Friends in Canada and Europe often ask me how I live under the threat of gun violence or accept the loss of what they consider basic human rights. Louis-Phillippe Dalembert’s 2021 novel Milwaukee Blues, out this week in Marjolijn de Jager’s English translation, makes me feel the same way those inquiries do. Dalembert is a Haitian writer who has lived all over the world; his novel—which circles an act of police brutality against an African American man in Wisconsin, modeled explicitly on the killing of George Floyd—strikes me as his attempt to explain to a Francophone reading public what the hell has been going on here.

The novel’s primary subject is Emmett, a former college football star, father of three, and Whole Foods security guard who has been murdered by the police outside of a convenience store. (Yes, Emmett like Emmett Till: His parents, Dalmbert writes, “must have been activists.”) To tell his story, the novel shifts perspectives, chapter to chapter, from the Pakistani Muslim clerk who regrets calling the police over a counterfeit bill, to various people, white and Black, who knew Emmett as a child and in college—a teacher, friends, ex-girlfriends, a coach. These sections deliberately swing from precise observation to cliché, reflecting the way that people’s profound experiences get flattened into hollow slogans as they circulate on social media.

The last third of the book swerves in an unexpected direction, focusing on two activists—a young Haitian American woman, Marie-Hélène, and a dreadlocked white American Jew, Dan—who work together with a local religious leader to organize a march in Milwaukee in Emmett’s memory. Dalembert spends a striking amount of time on Dan: “a vegetarian like many true Rastas, and an Ashkenazi Jew,” with grandparents who were “civil rights activists” and “early members of the local NAACP” who now decry “those fascist wheeler-dealers leading Israel today.” Dan is more comfortable with radical protest actions than Marie-Hélène; when she calls him “Ogou Feray with kosher sauce,” referencing “the Vodou spirit of war,” he’s delighted: “That’s brilliant, it suits me.” The novel ends by imagining Dan and Marie-Hélène, many decades in the future, each telling the story of the march and protests they led to “their grandchildren . . . who would be human beings first before being Americans, Jews, Haitians, Blacks, Whites.”

Mitch Abidor (contributing writer): Two terrific political films are opening this weekend in New York, both at Lincoln Center.

Cyril Schäublin’s Unrest is as radical a film as has been released in many years. It follows revolutionary writer Pyotr Kropotkin’s 1876 visit to the anarchist watchmakers of Saint-Imier, a Swiss town in the Jura Mountains. (The title refers not to political turbulence, but to the heart of a watch, the unrest wheel.) It was among these workmen that Kropotkin first saw the benefits of mutual aid and found proof of people’s ability to organize themselves outside all relations of power and authority, and became convinced of the justice of anarchism. Schäublin’s film depicts all of this, showing the workers’ support for each other, their internationalism, and their organizations, including a collective that refuses to produce timepieces for the military.

But Unrest’s radicalism goes far beyond the doctrines expressed on screen. Borrowing a page from filmmakers like Jean-Marie Straub and Danièle Huillet, Schäublin has made a movie in which every element is an expression of its politics. Saint-Imier had four time zones in this era, and this fact is never far from the forefront, as the film highlights the question of who controls time. Language, too, is contested; there is no dominant tongue in Unrest, which slips between French and German and Russian. The cast is made up of non-professionals, most of them friends of Schäublin, who bring their own life experiences to their roles. Even the camera placement and shot framing are political: By putting a tree in the center and the people off to the side, for instance, Schäublin demonstrates the unfreedom of most cinema. Unrest is a film about anarchism that is itself proof of anarchism’s viability.

In Manuela Martelli’s debut, Chile ’76, Augusto Pinochet’s murderous military dictatorship is three years old. If life goes on as normal for Carmen, the film’s protagonist, it’s a fragile normalcy. As the film opens, she is having paint custom blended for the redesign of her family’s summer home when paint falls on her shoe; some activity on the street has distracted her and the shop owner. While the commotion is kept from our view, it’s clearly an opponent of the regime being disappeared, as he shouts his name and ID number to all who can hear him.

Carmen—chain-smoking, well-dressed, the wife of a successful surgeon in Santiago—does charity work with her family priest, reading stories to the blind. Though she has no medical training, she has worked with the Red Cross in the past, and the priest asks her to treat a common criminal he’s sheltering who was wounded by the police. But she soon realizes that the criminal, Elias, is actually a member of the resistance. Carmen agrees to assist him in contacting his comrades, and this elegant, bourgeois grandmother is soon walking the streets of poor parts of the region, holding a loaf of bread or a lightbulb, signs to Elias’s comrades that she is carrying a message.

Chile ’76 is dominated by an atmosphere of dread. Carmen is ever on the alert, worried she is being followed—and when her car is broken into, she knows she is. And yet she continues. At the film’s end, we’re left to think that the fear engulfing Chile has finally gotten to Carmen, and that her journey out of her own world is over. Perhaps it is. But perhaps not.

Libby Lenkinski (member, JC Board of Directors): This week—the first week of the Jewish month of Iyar—always runs heavy on nationalism in Israel, with the official holidays of Yom HaZikaron, the day of remembrance for fallen soldiers, and Yom HaAtzmaut, or Israeli Independence Day, following in quick succession. Counter the official government calendar, many citizens of Israel—Jewish and Palestinian alike—opt to commemorate the Nakba on Israeli Independence Day. In honor of that sentiment, I wanted to recommend a new video series from the Australian Jewish website Plus61J, titled “From Their Perspective: Palestinian Citizens of Israel.”

The series was produced and directed by Ghousson Bisharat, a Palestinian citizen of Israel herself, and features some of the most insightful voices on the issues and challenges facing the community, whose families survived the Nakba but did not leave the land within ’48 borders. Part One features veteran media and policy professor Amal Jamal explaining the development of Arab politics within Israel; Part Two is a sit-down with veteran feminist activist Nabila Espanioly, who talks about social issues affecting Palestinian citizens of Israel—like housing, crime, and poverty—and their disproportionate impact on women; Part Three focuses on Dr. Amal El-sana A’ H’Jooj, author and founder of a Jewish-Arab NGO (AJEEC-NISPED), who outlines the prospects and difficulties of intercommunal solidarity in Israel; Part Four offers a glimpse into the balancing act Palestinian Israeli identity entails with journalist, filmmaker, and anchorman Rami Younis; and Part Five follows the musings of Arab hip-hop pioneer, actor, activist, and poet Tamer Nafar, who doubles down on the importance of cultural production, despite the lack of any institutional infrastructure for Arabic-language media.

As an Israeli American who works to further justice, equality, and freedom throughout Israel and the territories it controls, I know that the only way of reckoning with Israeli Independence/the Nakba is to talk about what happened in 1948 from multiple perspectives. But I also know we can’t stop there. As we see from the afterlives of South African apartheid, American slavery, and European imperialism, legally and socially entrenched systems of oppression never completely end—they shapeshift. The same is true for what is an ongoing Nakba for the Palestinian people. But if there is any hope of a positive future for Israelis, Palestinians, and both peoples’ diasporas, we have to go beyond simple recognition of contemporary injustice’s historical roots. We need a sense of what true equality would mean for those who are today disenfranchised, and Palestinian citizens of Israel, who constitute 21% of the country’s population, here offer nuanced, painful, and complex perspectives on this system of dispossession. This series is just a taste of their reality.

I’m lucky to call some of those featured in this series friends and colleagues. Their views represent an entry point to a more profound set of ideas about equality, partnership, and the importance of addressing the past.

Daniel May (publisher): For weeks, I’ve been waiting—with an embarrassing degree of fanboy excitement—for Alisa Solomon’s review of the current production of Loraine Hansberry’s The Sign in Sidney Brustein’s Window, which just moved to Broadway this week. Solomon is, to my mind, one of the great theater critics in the country, and I knew that whatever she had to say about Hansberry’s rarely-produced masterpiece would prove more insightful, informative, and moving than anything else I could read about the show, which has haunted me since I saw it a few weeks ago at the Brooklyn Academy of Music. And Solomon does not disappoint. I sent her review to the friend with whom I saw the show, who wrote back: “This made me cry.”

If you’ve read anything about the play, you probably know that it is, as the playwright Branden Jacobs-Jenkins put it in The New York Times, a “study of liberal self-delusion and whiteness as an existential crisis.” Solomon cites Jacobs-Jenkins’s description approvingly but notes that the play hones in on a particular kind of liberal self-delusion: namely, a Jewish one. For Solomon, Hansberry’s portrait offers a searing indictment of a personality familiar to anyone who has spent time in the world of American progressive Judaism—a person caught between confidence in their own unique capacity to transform the world, a desperate need for the recognition of that capacity, and the brutal insistence of the world to both resist that transformation and refuse that recognition. As Solomon reads it, the play is a story of what happens to such a person when those delusions fall away, and for Hansberry’s Brustein, that is both a tragic and redemptive story; as the delusions crumble, so does the man. But only when those delusions or pretenses fall away can they be replaced with the commitment to other human beings that is ultimately at the root of any struggle for justice.

Solomon is undoubtedly right about all of this, but her review also helped clarify what I found so moving about the play, which isn’t quite captured by descriptions of it as a searing indictment of white liberalism, or even more particularly white male Jewish liberalism. It is that, to be sure—Brustein’s casual misogyny and offhand racism made the Brooklyn audience around me gasp—but in her own discussion of the play, Hansberry wrote that, “the silhouette of the Western intellectual poised in hesitation before the flames of involvement was an accurate symbolism of some of my closest friends, some of whom crossed each other leaping in and out, for instance, of the Communist Party. Others searched, as agonizingly, for some ultimate justifications of their lives in the abstractions flowing out of London or Paris. Still others were contorted into seeking a meaningful repudiation of all justifications of anything and had, accordingly, turned to Zen, action painting, or even just Jack Kerouac.” In her self-description, it was “the climate and mood of such intellectuals which constitute the core of a play called The Sign in Sidney Brustein’s Window.”

The various avenues Hansberry lays out here amount to a concise account of most, if not all, of the paths that Brustein travels in the play as he struggles to align his commitments with the world in which he finds himself. But what most stands out to me in this quotation is the context: The silhouette she details is that of some of her closest friends. Brustein is a monstrously self-absorbed misogynist unaware of the status his whiteness confers. He is also brilliant, imaginative, and—above all—unwilling to live a life that does not align with his deepest commitments. That leads him to enormous naivéte and self-involvement and despair; it also provides the possibility of his redemption. What makes the play great, to my mind, is that it conveys the love, impatience, fury, and ultimately hope that Hansberry clearly had for those “closest friends.”

While the show may land with particular force for those white, male Jews raised to regard their own ideas with wonder, Hansberry is, I think, ultimately speaking to anyone that has found themselves run aground by the gulf between their sense of justice and truth and the machinations of a world that seems uninterested in either. In the play’s final lines, Hansberry has Sidney offer words that extend to the audience that has spent the last several hours watching his undoing. “Let us both weep,” he says gently. “That is the first thing: to let ourselves feel again . . . then, tomorrow, we shall make something strong of this sorrow.”

Dana Bassett (director of finance and outreach): Basketball is great for many reasons, but one of them is that, unless you work for the NBA, it’s a great non-work topic to discuss with anyone and everyone. And because we’re deep in the playoffs, it’s all I’m talking about.

I, myself, am a lifelong Miami Heat fan. Some of my earliest memories are of sitting between my dad and my uncle and my uncle’s giant bag of giant green seeded grapes and watching Alonzo Mourning and Tim Hardaway in the paint. When my family gathers on holidays, the Heat or the Dolphins (or college football—but never, ever the Marlins), are always playing somewhere in the background. But my interest in the Miami Heat really hit a fever pitch at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic. I, like so many people, became obsessed with the NBA bubble (and Anna Karenina, but that’s a different Shabbat Reading List rec altogether). I was enthralled not just by the gameplay (which many have argued was of an overall higher quality than usual) but also the minutiae, the stories, the drama. I was fascinated by who players brought with them to the bubble, how the food service worked, how the reporters had to live on site, the political outspokenness of WNBA and NBA players, group economics, the endless protocols and testing cycles, et cetera. More so than usual, the NBA was a microcosm of our society at large, with all its segmentation, hierarchy, and human intrigue. Most importantly though, it gave us (fans) something to talk about! I grew close to people who also followed the league, and the respite from all-to-common conversations about death and disease felt precious and important.

Anyway, I could go on and on and on about my personal interest in the NBA. I, like my mother, am the type of fan who is not actually enjoying themselves unless my team is holding a comfortable lead. But for the casual spectator, now is the absolute best time to get into the game. It’s the veritable World Series of basketball, our Super Bowl, if you will. It’s the NBA playoffs.

As I’m writing this, the first round is about to finish, and we have another to get through until we arrive at the conference finals, the penultimate round of the tournament. While there are a few second round matchups we could discuss, I want to highlight the impending battle between two scrappy, lovable underdogs: my beloved Miami Heat, who upset the Milwaukee Bucks (the highest seeded team in their conference) this week and what is (surprisingly) now the best team New York has to offer, the Knicks, who will meet at Madison Square Garden for the first game of their second round series this Sunday.

It’s the playoffs, so any matchup is exciting, but little is better than competing with a much-hated and long-standing rival. The Heat and the Knicks have a storied history, facing off in the playoffs four consecutive times during the 1997-2000 NBA seasons (including the infamous “leg game” during the first round of the 1998 Eastern Conference playoffs. Google it.). There is even a Wikipedia page titled “Heat–Knicks rivalry.”

Couple that history with both teams’ excellent rosters, and, my friends, we have a series. Miami’s star, Jimmy Butler, scored a historic 56 points in Game 4 against the Bucks, and Knicks point guard Jaylen Brunson has been punching well above his 6-foot-2 frame, scoring over 40 points in the last two games of their first round series against the Cavaliers.

I’m afraid that this series will have a lasting impact on my friendship with various Knicks fans in my life (I have received more than a few menacing texts), but I’m sure it’ll be an exhilarating match up either way. Can’t wait to see what Spike Lee wears to the game. Heat in 5.

Mitch Abidor (contributing writer): When Jews and fabulous wealth are linked, it’s usually the Rothschilds and their European financial empire that come to mind. Far less known are the Sassoons, the extraordinarily prosperous Iraqi Jewish family who rose to the highest ranks of the English aristocracy. This family, sometimes called “the Rothshilds of the East,” are the subject of a fascinating exhibit at the Jewish Museum simply called The Sassoons, on display until August 13th. (I also highly recommend its catalog, written by Esther da Costa Meyer and Claudia J. Nahson, which is as sumptuous as the show it documents.)

Though The Sassoons focuses on all that was splendid and splendorous about the titular family, it doesn’t ignore the mundane matter of the source of their riches. David Sassoon, the already wealthy paterfamilias, fled Iraq in 1832 to escape persecution by the Mamluk rulers and established himself, his family, and his businesses in Calcutta and Bombay, and later Shanghai. Unlike the Rothschilds, banking was not at the heart of the Sassoon portfolio; their fortune was made in the manufacture and trading of real objects—principally cotton, textiles, and opium. When the British government finally moved to ban the opium trade, the Sassoons fought the proposal tooth and nail, presenting use of the drug as a positive good. They lost, but by that time their wealth was so enormous, and its sources so varied, that this barely made a dent in their lifestyle.

The Sassoons does not question the morality of the family’s involvement in the opium trade or their lobbying against its prohibition; indeed, it is not particularly interested in examining capitalist business practices. Instead, it considers how a Jewish family from the Western world’s imperial colonies managed to reach the very heights of the British upper crust, presenting their history as a tale of the conflicting pulls of assimilation and tradition. The exhibit traces the family’s ascent through objects, photographs, and the conservative Western art they collected as larger and larger branches of the family left the colonies for life in England, abandoning the magnificent imitation British homes they built in India and China—well represented at the show—for mansions in London and the English countryside. It also includes a generous selection of family portraits painted by some of the most important portraitists of the time, like John Singer Sargent.

Though assimilation into the highest ranks of the British elite led some of the Sassoons—including the most famous member of the family, the poet Siegfried Sassoon—to abandon their religion, others remained true to their ancestral roots. The show displays the Judaica the family members collected, as well as Karaite and Samaritan documents. Notably, the family did most of its philanthropic work through Jewish institutions, which they established and supported. And their origins also made a mark in other ways: For many years, for instance, their business correspondence was written in Baghdadi Jewish dialect, which became a form of code used to keep its contents hidden from prying eyes. But for the most part, especially from the early 20th century on, the Sassoons became more British than the British. The exhibit demonstrates just how easily and successfully they negotiated this shift.

Dahlia Krutkovich (fellow): Last week, I told my partner, N., I was planning to recommend In the Freud Archives, Janet Malcolm’s 1983 chronicle of a cascading set of disputes between the guardians and would-be destroyers of the Sigmund Freud Archive, the unpublished letters, notebooks, and marginalia controlled by the Freud estate. N., who has a glancing interest in psychoanalysis but mostly just puts up with my prattling on about Juliet Mitchell et al., later texted me this New York Times Styles section feature on the resurgence of Freudianism in our times. A Styles piece, she added, only telegraphs that a fad has played itself out and we should leave it for dead. But In the Freud Archives, along with the The Journalist and the Murderer and Psychoanalysis: The Impossible Profession, the other books published at the height of Malcolm’s powers, proves “Malcolm is the best to ever do it,” in the words of Nora Caplan-Bricker, the executive editor of Jewish Currents. So I’ve decided to move ahead with my recommendation, which risks placing me behind the tastemakers but will at least please my boss.

Malcolm—who has been the subject of a flurry of profiles since her death in 2021 and the publication of her posthumous autobiography earlier this year— situates herself as a character but not a player in the unfurling Oedipal saga between up-and-coming Freud scholar Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson and his erstwhile mentor Kurt Eissler, writing with an eye toward the extremely self-conscious self-styling these men engage in as they engage with her. Eissler, an Old World devotee of Freud, seeks to protect the father of psychoanalysis’s legacy from latter-day assassination attempts; Masson, whom Malcolm introduces as “a practiced hand at seeking and winning the favor of older men in positions of power,” verges on succeeding Eissler as director of the Freud Archive—a functionally tenured position from which, in his own telling, he hopes to expose the entire profession as “based on a lie”—but before his plot can come to fruition, his craven ambition and yen for the spotlight lead him to gab to a reporter (not Malcolm) and publicize his controversial theories about the Freudian paradigm. In a series of dramatic letters, Eissler blocks Masson’s full appointment to the archive, and both men, Malcolm relates, are variously heartbroken, incensed, and indignant about the betrayals at hand.

The bulk of In The Freud Archives devotes itself to reconciling factual incongruities between the different accounts of Masson’s rise and fall—including the scientific dispute at the heart of the personal drama between Eissler and Masson. The entire narrative has a functionally dialectic structure to it, in which Masson’s and Eissler’s unreliable retellings are made compatible via a third litigant, whose independent assessment of both men mostly feels like a relief by the time it comes in the book’s final act.

Malcolm’s craft reveals itself in how she structures her book around perspectives from a peanut gallery of analysts, whose diagnoses Masson refers to as “cheap parlor analysis.” As Malcolm works through what are, on their face, ego-driven personal narratives that don’t make sense, these sidebars help ground the narrative and remind the reader that, yes, the protagonists in this story are the compulsive neurotics they present themselves to be—even if no one goes as far as to say exactly that. Just as I would arrive at a point of ultimate frustration with whichever personality had Malcolm’s attention, she would pivot to an apparent straight man or woman—another analyst with little-to-no stake in the scientific squabble between characters—to comment gravely on the personalities on display. But this series of contemptible personalities is hard to bear not because Malcolm renders each a caricature or cartoon, but because you get the sense she’s distilled them into an essential impression, which is itself a clinic on reporting.

Arielle Angel (editor-in-chief): Like everyone, I can’t seem to avoid conversations about how worried we should be about artificial intelligence. Yesterday, my husband played me a “Drake” song created without Drake—the beat, lyrics, and voice were all AI-generated. My husband is worried about the chaotic potential of deep fakes in an already unhinged political landscape. I suppose I’m worried about art—or not even art so much as its basic building blocks: language, line, sound. What will happen to our humanness when simulacrum is source, when we are “generating” from an entirely closed loop? To ask this question is to recognize the various ways this humanness has already been impoverished by our addiction to various technologies and the incessant horrors and demands of climate catastrophe and late capitalism. As philosopher Timothy Morton writes in All Art is Ecological, “Being in a place, being in an era, for instance an era of mass extinction, is intrinsically uncanny. We haven’t been paying much attention.”

This passage constitutes the epigraph for Faye Driscoll’s epic masterpiece Weathering, which wrapped six performances at New York Live Arts last Saturday. The performance—described as a “a multi-sensory flesh sculpture made of bodies, sounds, scents, liquids and objects”—evokes such anxieties about disconnect and alienation by rushing headlong into their negation. Ten dancers stand upright, somewhat apart, on a squishy, white platform. In the beginning, it’s unclear that anything at all is happening; fingertips search, chins tilt, gaze wanders. (The phone-addled audience member wonders how things could possibly go on this way.) But when the tech crew descends to rotate the platform, one notices that the picture has changed. Something is happening. The figures have begun to reach for one another. They have taken hold of each other’s clothing, they are making contact, pushing or draping or reaching with various parts of the body, forming a shifting tableau that calls to mind The Raft of Medusa. Over the next 70 minutes, the pace—and the nature of the contact—continues to intensify. The platform spins faster. Clothes are shed or clawed off by others. Powders puff and oozes smear and juices drip. Creaks and moans become sustained howls. Is this an orgy or a massacre? Is this terror or delight? Are they becoming something else—animal, undead—or rooting deeper in a basic humanness?

Driscoll has an incredible capacity to stuff the enormity of human experience into her shows. The last work I saw of hers, You’re Me (2012), was a duet which seemed to encompass every possible permutation of interrelation. And still, Weathering is on an entirely different scale, and though it seems like each performance has the potential to be quite different, there is also a sense of her mastery. Indeed, Driscoll sits in the front row, with the audience, breathing into a mic the way a maestro waves her arms, getting up intermittently to help push the raft, or swat fallen objects away from its path. In a short video about the making of the work, Driscoll calls the work “a requiem for the body,” in a rapidly changing world. By the end of Weathering, I felt as if she had drawn me through the collapse of civilization to the other side. What was left there are our bodies, our voices.

Nathan Goldman (managing editor): I’m not quite sure what to make of The Passenger and Stella Maris, the pair of imperfect but deeply compelling novels by Cormac McCarthy released at the end of last year. The books center on salvage diver (and former race car driver) Bobby Western and his sister Alicia, tortured mathematical geniuses whose father was instrumental in the development of the atomic bomb. The Passenger opens with Alicia’s suicide and follows Bobby’s haunted, mercurial life in the wake of her death, with interstitial chapters flashing back to Alicia’s encounters with a gang of hallucinated figures whose wisecracking ringleader calls himself the Thalidomide Kid; Stella Maris, a narrative prologue and thematic postscript, comprises a series of conversations between Alicia and her psychiatrist at an inpatient psychiatric facility, where she admits herself after a car crash leaves Bobby in a coma.

The Passenger, which is nearly twice the length of Stella Maris, initially presents itself as comparatively propulsive: After Bobby surfaces a mystery about a sunken plane during a dive, he winds up being pursued by nefarious government agents. But the thriller premise is ultimately a red herring that serves only to generate a sense of ambient menace and send Bobby on the run, where he bumps into old friends for digressive conversations and has plenty of time for brooding self-torment. Despite the dramatic differences in structure and scope, each novel is organized around winding and absorbing philosophical dialogues on guilt, memory, and the nature of the universe. (I was surprised to find myself occasionally reminded of Rachel Cusk’s discursively driven Outline trilogy.) The subject matter, from the interpersonal to the historical to the cosmic, is unrelentingly heavy, but the rhythm of these exchanges generates a sense of lightness and play. At moments when I felt frustrated by the novels’ willful obscurity and irresolution or suspicious that their loose structure was a sign of underdevelopment rather than masterful subtlety, this liveliness—and the ambition that simmers beneath the surface of each page, as McCarthy confronts fundamental questions of existence—carried me through.

Mitch Abidor (contributing writer): The Argentine director Laura Citarella’s new film, Trenque Lauquen, is a leisurely, complex exploration of the mystery that is other people. The title of the film, we quickly learn, both means “round lake” in the Indigenous Mapuche language and is the name of the town a few hundred miles from Buenos Aires where most of the story unfolds. The drama begins by following two men and their attempts to locate their lover Laura, an aspiring biologist who did not return to Buenos Aires after her contract to survey the plants of the rural region surrounding Trenque Lauquen expired. (The film owes a debt to Michelangelo Antonioni’s L’Avventura, the greatest of all modernist films about a woman’s disappearance, which is underlined when the word “Aventura” appears on the screen early in the first of its two parts.) This initial premise is complicated by a brilliant series of flashbacks, which trace Laura’s attempt to solve two mysteries upon which she, in turn, has stumbled. One relates to a decades-old affair between lovers whose correspondence she discovers hidden inside a book by Russian revolutionary Alexandra Kollontai in the local public library; the other concerns the strange creature apparently being hidden by Elisa, a local physician whose every action is wrapped in secrecy.

Over the course of the film’s four hours, Citarella doesn’t entirely resolve these enigmas, as the film slips effortlessly across continents and between genres, from romance to mystery to science fiction to horror. She makes use of the lengthy runtime to unhurriedly unveil more minor revelations. For instance, Laura’s supervisor complains that she left town with a pair of her “wellies” (the subtitles are annoyingly Australian, with the Argentines exclaiming “crikey” on several occasions); in the final scenes, no attention is drawn to the high rubber boots on her feet—the lost “wellies.” Characters frequently allude to the theft of a car, while a local who has fallen in love with Laura claims it was not stolen at all. We are teased for several hours before seeing that he was right.

Throughout the film, past and present are skillfully and even drolly mixed. Laura’s work and the ultimate revelation of what’s afoot in Elisa’s home are resolutely modern, but the setting of the seemingly endless grasslands of Argentina’s Pampas evokes the country’s mythic past. Two places bear the name of the greatest of all literary gauchos, Martín Fierro, and Laura even crosses paths with actual gauchos, in their ponchos and serapes and black hats. All of this adds up to a compelling and beguiling portrait of Trenque Lauquen—a place, in Laura Citarella’s rendering, of unplumbed strangeness.

Arielle Angel (editor-in-chief): Two must-see exhibitions: The first is Material/Inheritance at the Jewish Museum of Maryland in Baltimore, a group show curated by Leora Fridman pulling together artists who have been fellows in the now four-year-old New Jewish Culture Fellowship. Full disclosure: Though I did not participate in the show, I was a fellow in the first cohort. Many NJC fellows have graced the pages of Jewish Currents over the years, and at least one work in the show—Elie Lobovits’s Fertility series—was first published in Jewish Currents’s Summer 2022 issue. So this is not an impartial review so much as an affirmation that, as I said in this newsletter a few weeks ago, and as JC contributing writer Sol Brager wrote in Artforum last summer, something is up right now in the world of Jewish art.

The fellowship and the show take as a galvanizing text JC contributing editor and NJCF co-founder Maia Ipp’s 2019 essay “Kaddish for an Unborn Avant Garde,” which lamented the communal disinvestment in arts and culture in favor of Israel-related projects and programming. In this regard, the show feels like a coming out of sorts for a group of mostly millennial Jewish artists that is beginning to see itself as part of a cohort, perhaps, engaged in deeper conversation with one another about Jewish politics and identity. For me, the show’s highlights included Nat Sufrin’s irreverent and provocative How to See the Shoah: Google Images Translation of Celan and Reznikoff, which breaks down two poems—Paul Celan’s “Ashglory” and Charles Reznikoff’s “Holocaust”—into phrases alongside their Google images searches, displayed in a grid. I also really enjoyed two dramatic audio works: Jay Eddy’s naturalistic three-channel installation The Death of Arthur, following three generations mourning the death of a grandfather, and Ben Gassman and Brandon Woolf’s playful, stylish Between the Bread, which focuses on the sandwich as a site of urban inter-ethnic encounter. But perhaps my favorite piece was Liat Berdugo’s performative slide lecture Seeing it for the Trees, performed live at the opening, which uses the JNF-KKL’s photographic archive alongside personal images as a way to understand the role of trees in the formation of ethnonationalist statehood. The room was packed during Berdugo’s performance—much of the audience, the silver-haired crowd you might expect at a Jewish museum on a Sunday afternoon—and I couldn’t help but notice that this was just the kind of work that would have been pushed out of mainstream Jewish institutions just a few years ago. It made me feel hopeful that, despite the pervasive sense of an ossified Jewish communal infrastructure, a shift might be underway. The show is up until June 11th, and will include another day of performances at the closing in Maryland as well as some “activations” in New York City.

I also cannot recommend enough Images on which to build at the Leslie-Lohman Museum of Art in Manhattan, curated by (another NJC fellow) Ariel Goldberg, which focuses on photography-based art, activism, education, and media production within queer and trans communities in the 1970s to the 1990s. “Presenting trans and queer image cultures from this time creates spaces beyond the visual, where felt experiences of affirmation, recognition, and connection form legacies to shape our present and future,” Goldberg writes in their curatorial statement. The show is barely more than one big room, and yet it feels dense with a web of connections; each listed artist or collective brings with them an entire community—sometimes an entire lineage. The space is frankly packed with people, and I found myself incredibly moved by the project of identifying and uplifting one’s yikhes. Perhaps I’m a sucker for the performative slide lecture (what an amazing form!) but when you go, you must make time for The Dyke Show by JEB (or Joan E. Biren), which, among other things, recovers the images of lesbian photographers, most of whom could only be claimed as lesbians in retrospect. This act of looking queerly, uncovering what the straight world would prefer not to see, acts as an anchor for the exhibition as a whole. The audio was recorded in front of a live audience—JEB toured the show between 1979–1984—and we hear them laugh and sigh and hum with interest, recognition, gratitude, and relief. In this moment of renewed homophobic and transphobic backlash, I found a lot of strength in listening to the reactions of that room, in feeling for a moment like I was there with them. I felt anew the meaning of that old Yiddish adage, “We Will Outlive Them.”

David Klion (contributing editor): I just finished a used copy of Breaking Ranks, Norman Podhoretz’s second memoir, which was published in 1979, and which I stumbled upon at the Strand last week. The neoconservatives are a topic of obsessive study for me, and Podhoretz in particular is a guilty pleasure as well; in spite of his awful politics and equally awful personality, in his prime he was a wonderful writer. I’m a fan of Making It, his first memoir, which I wrote about for Jewish Currents in 2017, 50 years after its publication, and later discussed on an episode of Know Your Enemy with Matt Sitman and JC contributor Sam Adler-Bell. That book, which is only tangentially concerned with politics, is a shamelessly self-aggrandizing account of the author’s rise from working-class Brooklyn to the Upper West Side intelligentsia. Making It managed to piss off all of Podhoretz’s friends in the latter milieu, not with overt ideological heresies but with its heresy against propriety; middle-class intellectuals weren’t supposed to acknowledge their own ambition for prestige and material success, much less brag about how far they’d already come. But dishy, confessional memoirs are less scandalous now than they were then, which might be why Making It has developed something of a cult following in the past few years among precisely the kind of lefty New York writers whose forebears hated it.

Breaking Ranks is a more conventional book, and much less referenced nowadays, but it’s an essential text for understanding the rise of neoconservatism. (It’s also a key source for Benjamin Balint’s Running Commentary, a favorite of multiple JC staffers that has been recommended here a few times already.) Loosely framed as a letter to his teenage son John, who would later inherit the editorship of Commentary that he still holds today, Breaking Ranks is an account of Podhoretz’s evolution from Cold War liberal to quasi-radical to reactionary over the course of the 1950s, ’60s, and ’70s. The publication of Making It is a pivotal moment halfway through Breaking Ranks; it’s fun to consider whether Podhoretz’s alienation from his left-wing peers was more cause or effect of the controversy surrounding his previous memoir. Either way, the decade or so after Making It saw Podhoretz—and Commentary—embrace the right on nearly every major issue, triggering the Old and New Left alike.

From a contemporary vantage, what’s most striking about Breaking Ranks is how little the structure of elite political discourse has changed since the late ’70s. Today we have a surplus of writers making the pivot from left to right, always citing the same basic grievances: the rise of a new class of educated elites and a new dogma that betrays core liberal principles; the social advancement of marginalized groups to an extent that makes the author personally uncomfortable; the alleged hostility of university campuses and intellectual publications to open debate on hot-button issues. We hear this stuff all the time now, though rarely as articulately as Podhoretz put it when he established the template decades ago. Meanwhile, Podhoretz himself is still alive at 93; just last year, he told the Claremont Review of Books that he’s not sure Donald Trump actually lost the 2020 election. Everything old is neo again.

Cynthia Friedman (operations manager): Last week, I attended one of the final nights of Ryan J. Haddad’s “Dark, Disabled Stories” at the Public Theater in New York. It was a terrific performance. Haddad is a gay actor with cerebral palsy, and the play is made up of autobiographical vignettes about his dating life and his experiences navigating New York City—especially its transit systems—with his walker. Haddad’s humor guides audience members through each story—a skillful balancing act that makes the difficult parts bearable and prevents his exploration of being disabled in an environment structured by ableism from coming off as any sort of “tragedy.” He makes clear at the beginning—after a story that begins with him giving a blowjob to a cute date in a pub bathroom—that if anyone is there to pity him, they should leave.

The play not only tells nuanced, non-universal stories about living with a disability, but also models ways to produce accessible theater. Haddad performs alongside another actor, Dickie Hearts, who signs the monologues in ASL; both are costumed in shirts that say “Ryan,” and the two interact onstage in creative, funny, and lovely ways. A third actor, Alejandra Ospina, plays the role of “Descriptor,” intermittently verbalizing visual cues for blind and low-vision audience members, which are telecast on a panel above the stage. The narration is also projected in text form on the back wall of the set.

Hearts and Ospina each share one monologue from their own lives. (Haddad subs in as the narrator or Descriptor.) Hearts shares a story of being consensually hand-cuffed during sex by a stranger from Grindr: He moves from his initial terror at having his method of communication restricted into an experience that begins to feel hot. Ospina’s scene—discussing her predicament, as a person in a motorized wheelchair, when a subway elevator is broken—has no positive resolution. She shares her grief at missing professional and social appointments, and the terror and uncertainty of being trapped underground.

The play seems successful at providing value—in the form of recognition, insight, or a mix of both—to disabled and non-disabled audience members alike. (It was cool to be in an audience where many people were visibly using mobility aids.) Even though this run has ended, I recommend that you follow Haddad’s work and look out for his future projects, which I suspect will be just as incisive and moving.

Mitch Abidor (contributing writer): Some of the French director François Ozon’s finest films, like Swimming Pool and Under the Sand, were co-written with the novelist Emmanuèle Bernheim, who died of cancer in 2017. Sadly, Americans who don’t read French have virtually no access to her remarkable and strange body of work. But with the American arrival of Ozon’s latest film, those who have been deprived of Bernheim’s company will now at least have a faithful film adaptation of one of her best books, the autobiographical Tout s’est bien passé (Everything Went Fine). The title refers to Bernheim’s father’s assisted suicide, and this jarring way of describing that event is a perfect example of Bernheim’s genius.

As the book and film make clear, Bernheim’s father, André, a wealthy retired industrialist and well-known art collector, was a very difficult man who treated his daughter coldly when she was a child. His marriage to Bernheim’s mother was a miserable one, not least because he was gay and deeply involved with a violent man who abused him. As the film begins, André has a stroke that leaves him severely diminished—his face twisted, his left eye drooping. Unable to do anything for himself, André announces that he wants to end it all, and it’s up to Emmanuèle (and not his other daughter, Pascale) to figure out how to get it done. Dutiful daughter that she is, she carries out her father’s wishes against her will.

Everything Went Fine’s exploration of aging succeeds on the strength of its actors. In his courageous performance as André, the usually vibrant and exuberant André Dussolier inhabits a character for whom sitting upright in a chair is a major accomplishment. Charlotte Rampling, whose performances usually burst with sexual energy, is trembling and grim as André’s ex-wife. Hannah Schygulla, once the iconic actress of the New German Cinema, plays the white-haired representative of the assisted suicide organization. The ravages of age are made all the more stark for those of us who knew these actors when they—and we—were young.

Emmanuèle and her sister hope that their father will change his mind—that as the day he calls “Le jour J,” meaning “D-Day,” approaches, André will realize that life is beautiful. But he remains stubborn. For him life is no longer beautiful, and he perseveres in his death drive, overcoming every last obstacle placed before him in his quest to end his days with a modicum of dignity. In the end, everything goes fine.