What I'm Watching: 'The Flat'

Recently I signed up to Netflix, eight hundred years after everyone else as usual, to expand my treasure trove of foreign films. I'm glad I did because one of the first films I watched was this brilliant documentary from Israel "The Flat". The director, Arnon Goldfinger, uncovers the secrets of his grandmother's life as he and his family clear out her Tel Aviv flat after her death. 

As his grandmother was a Jewish woman who had lived in Berlin in the 1920s and 30s, her life inevitably turns out to be rather interesting. Goldfinger deftly traces back through his grandparents' early lives in Germany and in particular a trip they took around Palestine in the 1930s with the distinctly  Prussian-sounding Leopold von Mildenstein and his wife.

It turns out - spoiler alert - that his grandparents were in fact very good friends with the von Mildensteins and even remained in touch with them after the war. Even after his grandmother's own mother was murdered at Auschwitz. 

Their friendship seems impossible to fathom to our modern sensibilities. Goldfinger goes in search of the von Mildenstein family in Germany, near Wuppertal, and tracks down their daughter, now elderly, and her husband. She is well aware of the friendship between their two sets of parents and is very welcoming towards him. He is a little hesitant, however, given what he knows about his great-grandmother's fate and the uncertainty about von Mildenstein's activities during the war.

There follows an excruciatingly awkward scene where Arnon Goldfinger and his mother try to make small talk over some 'Sekt' in Frau von Mildenstein's back garden and at the same point bring up the inevitably dreaded question of 'what did your (grand)father do during the war?' Toe-curling prevarication ensued from the von Mildenstein side.

It was an amusing scene for me to watch because most Germans I know are refreshingly blunt, happy to be very frank when discussing any issue. They do not stand on ceremony. It was unusual to see Germans pussy-footing around an issue, speaking in platitudes and allusions. 

This spoke to the awkwardness of the topic of course. It turned out that no-one could give Goldfinger the straight answer he wanted and so he turned to the Bundesarchiv, the German national archive to dig deeper on von Mildenstein's background. There he found out that, contrary to what his daughter knew (or claimed to know?), von Mildenstein had in fact been employed with Goebbels' Propaganda Ministry throughout the war. To what extent he was a devoted Nazi remained unclear but the discovery was an emotional one for the director.

Why had his grandparents remained friends with an employee of Goebbels? Why had they continued to take trips to Germany and Austria from Israel even after the war? Goldfinger's grandparents had clearly been very well integrated into the German bourgeoisie. They also left Germany relatively early, around 1935, as voluntary emigrants to Palestine. Given that background, they would not have witnessed the extremes of anti-Semitism unleashed by the Nazis, only the earlier years of insidious prejudice and ill-feeling. Germany would have been their home as much as it was the home of Leopold von Mildenstein.

At the end of the film, I felt sorry for the director's grandparents. They cut a sad figure in their desperation to retain some link to Germany. It also was a reminder of the sad reality that many Jewish people in Germany before the Nazi era were as German as their Christian and secular neighbors, speaking only German and following German cultural practices. Kurt Tuchler, Goldfinger's grandfather, had served his country in World War One, like many Jewish men of his generation.

The director's family seemed to have entirely suppressed any personal experience of the Holocaust, never even mentioning that his great-grandmother had died in the gas chambers, for example. This seems to be a common experience with populations that suffer trauma. There is a complex psychology attached to suffering. It becomes a source of shame to have been a victim and so suffering is repressed and not talked about.

Typically only the third or fourth generations are ready to confront the suffering in the family's history   and find out the family secrets. Unfortunately, by then the generation that has the most secrets to tell has passed on. 

News From Across the Pond...

On my usual lunchtime read of the New York Times, I was confronted with the following front page:

The center headline announces the birth of the first child of the daughter of a party planner and the scion of an obscure German duchy. News of this baby's arrival has been much anticipated even here in the US, although with not quite the level of hysteria typical of the UK media. 

Call me a curmudgeon, but I find it a little disappointing that a country as large as the United States that is founded on republican (small 'r'!) principles takes such an interest in the 'Royal baby' story. They did kick out the baby's ancestor for very good reasons 250 years ago, after all. Celebrity baby stories are always good click-bait, however, so we can assume that the free market is more of a motivator here than any change in American political sentiments. 

What should be of greater interest to all Americans is the story to the left of the 'Royal baby' story on the New York Times front page, 'Location Seen As Barrier in Climbing the Income Ranks'. It details a new study that reveals how important location can be in determining economic outcomes for low-income Americans. In the poorest parts of the United States, such as Atlanta, social mobility is lower and being born into the lowest income percentiles more or less guarantees future poverty too.

The study provides further evidence confirming that the United States is one of the most unequal developed countries in the world. Other developed countries such as Denmark and Canada have better social mobility than the USA. It is interesting to note, however, that within the United States itself there are pockets of 'Danish' or 'Canadian' equality with the Midwest of the country and wealthier metropolitan areas providing more opportunities for upward mobility than poorer parts of the US. 

This makes sense because when jobs are scarce nepotism tends to come into play. Growing up in Ireland with a 25% unemployment rate at times, the only way to get a good job was to know someone. In an increasingly competitive economy, this phenomenon seems to be more widespread than ever. In the same edition of the New York Times, an opinion piece 'Who's Your Daddy?', points out that a more unequal society becomes a vicious circle eventually. As life becomes more and more competitive those who enjoy relative privilege in the top quarter of earners feel unwilling to make way for the less fortunate. It becomes more acceptable to engage in nepotism and shy away from hiring unknowns.

The writer gives the example of Rolling Stone's Jann Wenner appointing his son Gus to be head of Rolling Stone magazine's online presence. At the ripe old age of 22. News of this kind of aristocratic-style appointment based on little more than primogeniture are disappointing. At least we still live in a society where business magnates like Rupert Murdoch and Jann Wenner, who set their sons up to inherit, are still obliged to explain their decision-making to shareholders and the public. Also, there are still examples out there of fantastically talented young people, like Tavi Gevinson, who have achieved success on their own steam. 

Nonetheless, if the economy keeps going in this direction, maybe it won't be long until Americans find themselves reading about endless hype about the birth of a Zuckerberg or Parker baby, with the event hailed as securing the future of an hereditary business empire and the sale of Facebook-Birth memorabilia that gullible subjects citizens can spend their hard-earned dollars to collect.

Celebrities Playing House

Every so often, a wealthy, successful woman comes out with some clanger on 'traditional' gender roles, guaranteed to drive up page views and click throughs and traffic. Recently we had this gem of wisdom from the multi-millionaire model, Miranda Kerr:

"If you're really an alpha female, you don't allow [your partner] to have the space to feel like the man in the relationship. Maybe I am too traditional, but men feel important when you ask for their help, instead of thinking you can do it all on your own." 

To be charitable here, we have to recognize that models are not known for their intellectual credentials. They are paid to look good, after all, not for their brainpower.

Women like Miranda Kerr do have a high profile, however, and serve as a role model for some misguided souls. Other rich and successful women even trade off the idea that they play a traditional role in their home lives, despite their high profiles. Beyoncé has controversially pitched her most recent world tour under her married name, 'Mrs Carter', confounding feminist commentators. 

Gwyneth Paltrow is another example of someone who has enhanced her personal brand with appeals to 'traditional' values. She likes to portray herself as a homely wife and mother, having dinner ready for her husband when he is home, as in this quote from a profile in Harper's Bazaar in 2011:

"She... remain[s] positive about the relatively traditional role she plays as a wife and mother, with her husband's career commitments currently taking precedence over hers. "I have little kids in school. I want to maintain my marriage and my family, so I have to be here when he comes home.' "

Does anyone really believe that Gwyneth Paltrow lives the life of a 'traditional' wife and mother? Her filming schedule -  the three Iron Man movies and a number of independent films in the last few years alone - is not compatible with a 9-5 schedule and neither is her musician husband's touring schedule.

It begs the question why these women feel the need to be so vocal about the so-called 'traditional' values that they follow in their personal lives. These are successful women in their own right with high profiles and personal fortunes built on years of hard work.

To me, I think a lot of these pronouncements come from guilt. None of us feel like we are doing the best job we can do as parents. If you are a movie star or celebrity, it's inevitable that you will need to rely on childcare and tutors and service personnel to maintain your home life and raise your children.

These women, like many career women, for some reason feel like they have to apologize for this. And so they 'play house' for the public, pretending to maintain normal home lives just like the rest of us regular schmoes.

What they do not understand, however, is that regular schmoes are actually working and sacrificing time with their families because they have to. For most people, having dinner on the table for a husband or giving their partners space to 'be a man' is the least of their worries. Most people have no help at all and work long hours to just make ends meet.

It is ironic that when celebrities say these things about maintaining their marriages and what they think is a normal family life, they are only revealing how far removed they are from the concerns of their fan-base.

Instead of trying to espouse what they think are normal family values, these women should instead be thankful that they are wealthy in their own right, independent of their husbands, have successful careers and can afford all the help they need to make things run smoothly at home. In doing so, they are living feminist values that many other women cannot afford. Maybe that explains why they in turn are so cavalier about those very same values, taking their freedom and good fortune for granted.