\v
^v;f*A#-^ ^f^^^^v.T^-"?***?^ \-
CANADIAH
>��
Cvery
Irid
ay
In years to come when some little Jewish boy or other, sitting on his grandfather's knee, asks: "And what did you ever do for the Jewish cause, Grandpa?" some Jewish grandfather or other will say with pride: "Why, my boy, I belonged to the Anti-Defamation League of the Bnai Brith Lodge when it made Cecil B. De Mille change his captions and add a signed prologue to the film The King of Kings'." This is inevitable because the Bnai Brith is already taking credit for this same momentous achievement just accomplished. It is true that low, deep bows and smooth, diplomatic language have been exchanged impressively between Alfred M. Cohen, international president of Bnai Brith, and Will Hays, the movie czar, ever since early November. But there are others who deserve credit, too: English-Jewish papers, outraged truth-loving Protestant ministers, Catholics, rabbis and motion picture critics wherever allowed to be honest, all of whom called De Mille's picturization of the crucifixion story repulsive, cheap, a distortion of the truth and a menace to the Jews in its power to fan anti-Semitic prejudice into flame.
The California Jewish Voice ran an interview with Rudolph Schildkraut as to why he acted the part of Caiphas in a picture con. sidered by leading Jews to be dangerous to their co-religionists. The famous actor at first deprecated any effect the film might have, saying that people don't pay any attention to what they see on the screen. But later, with beads of perspiration pouring from his forehead (according to the account), he admitted that the reason he played in the film was to get money enough to pay his debts. Anyway, the picture and the discussion in Los Angeles on the facts that the two Schildkrauts played in it and that rabbis actually assisted the producers in making the film ate said to have been the occasions for the bitterest disputes within Jewry there. In answer to criticism against him in the Jewish press and from the pulpit, De Mille, who is half Jewish, took an arrogant, deham stand in a press interview.
Rabbi Edgar Magnin, chairman of the Anti-Defamation League of the Los Angeles Bnai Brith, went to see De Mille and talked to him a number of times "in an attempt to protect the interests of the Jewish people, telling him that the story in the 'King of Kings' was written from an anti-Jewish viewpoint and that any dramatization of the crucifixion story is not likely to benefit the Jew." Rabbi Louis I. Newman, of Temple Emanu-El, San Francisco, less mild, did much more with continued comment in The Scribe, of Portland, Ore. From the first showing of the film he had taken a determined stand and severely criticized the Anti-Defamation Committee of the Bnai Brith on the Pacific Coast for what he called "soft pedalling."
He wrote: "In the meantime the picture is being shown in the provinces, theatre-owners, many of them Jews, having made contracts early last September and before. They profess not to have known of any Jewish opposition to the picture and say that the harm was done in not acquainting the Jewish world and the general public concerning the situation while the picture was being filmed. There is no doubt that much of the responsibility must be laid at the door of those who knew at first hand of the matter and failed to take the necessary steps to prevent the situation which has arisen. The Bnai Brith Anti-Defamation Committee on the Pacific Coast can not be too severely criticized for their failure to take appropriate action. They have sought to follow a 'hush-hush' policy. But by keeping silent they have played into the hands of De MiUe and his publicity agents who have advertised the fact far and wide that Jews have endorsed the picture. On this basis even Jewish theatre-owners have been misled into accepting the film. Instead of speaking forth-rightly or, better still, instead of taking action, instead of making a demonstration of Jewish public opinion (perhaps the only thing to which De Mille would give ear), the Bnai Brith Anti-Defamation leaders have sounded the soft pedal and^have sought to crush anyone who dared oppose this policy."
Rabbi Herman Lissauer, of Temple Emanu-El, Los Angeles, said in the Jevuk Voice: "No pussyfooting by the Anti-Defamadou League can hide the fact that this picture misrepresents the Jew aa
A LESSON IN THRIFT
2x2
Dig up last winter's coal bill�compare it with the prices quoted now�multiply that saving by the number of tons used�then note the advantage of having your fuel bins filled with
SEMET-SOLVAY
COKE
Ninety per cent, burnable � the clean, dependable fuel�cuts one-third off your fuel bill.
The Standard Fuel Co.
LIMITED
Telephone Elgin 7151
K.
surely as the Dearborn Independent has done it." Admittedly, as a result of "articles published," fifty Jews of Los Angeles met and urged the Bnai Brith to further approach De Mille and see what could be done about eliminating the exhibition of the film in countries where ^ pogroms might be caused. Then followed conferences between Alfred Cohen, Will Hays and Dr. David Phillipson, of Cincinnati, dean of American Reform rabbis, and the assurance that "The King of Kings," based on the life of Jesus, would not be shown in countries where it would create trouble. Now the film, as it is to be shown after January 18, will have a special prologue in which Jews will be exonerated from all guilt in the death of Jesus, the entire blame for the' crucifixion being taken by Caiphas (nee Rudolph Schildkraut), corrupt high priest and appointee of the Roman government. Also, De Mille, handsomely enough, is making a complete revision, cutting out all captions and scenes which might instigate prejudice against the Jews.
In passing it should be noted that "The King of Kings" in its previous rather raw state was recommended by Children's Magazines being "excellent for children." Also at the time Cecil B. De Mille was defending his expensive film in the press, the Metro-Goldwyft-Mayer Corporation withdrew the picture, "The Callahans and the Murphys," after threats of riot and much disturbance on the part ef the Irish. The Irish, although not so insulted as the Jews, as a rule, are more vehement protestors and far from agreeing to changes in the objectionable film, refused to stand for any perfume over the odour. So the film was withdrawn entirely.
Judging from what the best critics said about "The King of Kings," it won't be any good, anyway. Alexander Woollcott, of the � fifcw York World, said it made him just a little sick. With the exception of some beautiful sepia-coloured pictures, he said he was most affected by the smell of grease-paint, the aroma of Hollywood, which comes from the screen, and the picture of H. B. Warner trying to look like Jesus. However, it is Wooikott's guess that the film will the globe and with captions already translated into twenty-languages this is more than likely. May it serve no evil purpose 0*1 its travek! At best it can be only a doubtful force for
-A-
�.v