I neither have the knowledge nor any reason to disagree with the careful, detailed comment above (or is it below) as to the mediocrity of most of this family's material, or any of the rest of the comment. I would simply say while interesting to know, the criticism is no reason at all not to see this movie. There just isn't that much easily accessible film on Yiddish or Jewish show biz, outside of some theatrical movies kicking around out there but not in Blockbusters. I worked in the Catskills in the summers of 1957 and 1958 and to me there is no subcategory of schlock (cheaply made) within Yiddish entertainment. It's all good, the good and the not so good, at least now that it's hardly available. Critical distinctions don't matter at this point, and certainly should not to younger people who are unfamiliar with but curious about the Yiddish genre. Sure, there were better actors and mediocre actors, better plays and unoriginal skits, performers with originality and marginal journeymen just able to earn enough to eat, and I say so what? See this film and get a taste of the unfamiliar. You probably have seen enough crap from Hollywood to last a life time and gotten nothing out of it; with The Komediant you'll at least see something different, a world of show biz that at one time was huge and now is mostly a memory.
3 Reviews
The survivors write the history
Moshe Kam25 December 2002
I must admit to having never been terribly impressed with the Bursteins. When I saw Lillian Lux and Pesach Burstein on stage in Israel they were presenting very poor material, sticky sugary and over nostalgic schlock. The single exception was Itzik Manger's `Megille Lider,' the only memorable work the Bursteins staged post World War II. `The Komediant' describes this single success of the family quite well, but spends the rest of the time on such flops as `A Khasene in Shtetl' and marginal vaudeville acts that were not taken seriously even in their own time. Yiddish theater before and after World War II - in Europe, the US, and Palestine/Israel - had a much better fare to offer than the mindless Burstein acts. Overall, the Bursteins seem to have done relatively little of Ansky, Peretz, Goldfadn, and Sholom Aleichem (and probably no Shakespeare or Ibsen in Yiddish at all) but produced a lot of nonsense such as `A Khasene in Shtetl'.
The Bursteins are survivors, and so we hear about their trivial conquests rather than about the much more substantial contributions to Yiddish theater of, say, Maurice Schwartz and Ida Kaminska (or groups like Artef). Even in Israel of the 1960s it was much more interesting to go to Yiddish programs presented by Dzigan, Shumacher, Segal and Rodensky, than to the miserable productions of this tired bunch. Much time is wasted in `the Komediant' on the insignificant `career' of Mike Bursteyn, the ventriloquist Susan, Susan's wedding celebration, and similar marginalia.
Bursteyn's complaints in the movie about hostility to Yiddish by Israeli authorities are grossly exaggerated. Israel of the 1950s and 1960s had Yiddish newspapers and Yiddish theater. The official radio station (`Kol Yisrael') had two Yiddish broadcasts every day. Somehow, scores of Yiddish performers managed to work and make a living in Israel at that period in spite of the alleged `hostility'. In general, the relative lack of success of Lux/Burstein in Israel was due to the low quality of their acts, not the `inugim' tax and similar excuses. When the Bursteins finally had good material, as in the `Megille Lider,' they experienced great success.
There was some controversy over Finkel's Anne Frank joke in `the Komediant'. I did not find this joke as offensive as the obviously concocted and insincere stories of Lux on the family's `miraculous' flight from Europe. Most offensive was Lux's narrative on concentration camp victims allegedly singing her silly repertoire on their way to the gas chambers. This last tale was really bad exploitation of the holocaust for purposes of self-aggrandizing. Even if the story were true (and I do not think so) it was highly inappropriate to exploit it in this vulgar and base manner.
It is regrettable that `the Komediant' would now become in the mind of many the `historical' record of Yiddish theater on film. Yiddish Theater was much deeper, interesting, and multi-layered than this not terribly important tribute to this not terribly important family.
The Bursteins are survivors, and so we hear about their trivial conquests rather than about the much more substantial contributions to Yiddish theater of, say, Maurice Schwartz and Ida Kaminska (or groups like Artef). Even in Israel of the 1960s it was much more interesting to go to Yiddish programs presented by Dzigan, Shumacher, Segal and Rodensky, than to the miserable productions of this tired bunch. Much time is wasted in `the Komediant' on the insignificant `career' of Mike Bursteyn, the ventriloquist Susan, Susan's wedding celebration, and similar marginalia.
Bursteyn's complaints in the movie about hostility to Yiddish by Israeli authorities are grossly exaggerated. Israel of the 1950s and 1960s had Yiddish newspapers and Yiddish theater. The official radio station (`Kol Yisrael') had two Yiddish broadcasts every day. Somehow, scores of Yiddish performers managed to work and make a living in Israel at that period in spite of the alleged `hostility'. In general, the relative lack of success of Lux/Burstein in Israel was due to the low quality of their acts, not the `inugim' tax and similar excuses. When the Bursteins finally had good material, as in the `Megille Lider,' they experienced great success.
There was some controversy over Finkel's Anne Frank joke in `the Komediant'. I did not find this joke as offensive as the obviously concocted and insincere stories of Lux on the family's `miraculous' flight from Europe. Most offensive was Lux's narrative on concentration camp victims allegedly singing her silly repertoire on their way to the gas chambers. This last tale was really bad exploitation of the holocaust for purposes of self-aggrandizing. Even if the story were true (and I do not think so) it was highly inappropriate to exploit it in this vulgar and base manner.
It is regrettable that `the Komediant' would now become in the mind of many the `historical' record of Yiddish theater on film. Yiddish Theater was much deeper, interesting, and multi-layered than this not terribly important tribute to this not terribly important family.
Sadly the survivors write the history
Moshe Kam24 December 2002
I must admit to having never been terribly impressed with the Bursteins. When I saw Lillian Lux and Pesach Burstein on stage in Israel they were presenting very poor material, sticky sugary and over nostalgic schlock. The single exception was Itzik Manger's `Megille Lider,' the only memorable work the Bursteins staged post World War II. `The Komediant' describes this single success of the family quite well, but spends the rest of the time on such flops as `A Khasene in Shtetl' and marginal vaudeville acts that were not taken seriously even in their own time. Yiddish theater before and after World War II - in Europe, the US, and Palestine/Israel - had a much better fare to offer than the mindless Burstein acts. Overall, the Bursteins seem to have done relatively little of Ansky, Peretz, Goldfadn, and Sholom Aleichem (and probably no Shakespeare or Ibsen in Yiddish at all) but produced a lot of nonsense such as `A Khasene in Shtetl'.
The Bursteins are survivors, and so we hear about their trivial conquests rather than about the much more substantial contributions to Yiddish theater of, say, Maurice Schwartz and Ida Kaminska (or groups like Artef). Even in Israel of the 1960s it was much more interesting to go to Yiddish programs presented by Dzigan, Shumacher, Segal and Rodensky, than to the miserable productions of this tired bunch. Much time is wasted in `the Komediant' on the insignificant `career' of Mike Bursteyn, the ventriloquist Susan, Susan's wedding celebration, and similar marginalia.
Bursteyn's complaints in the movie about hostility to Yiddish by Israeli authorities are grossly exaggerated. Israel of the 1950s and 1960s had Yiddish newspapers and Yiddish theater. The official radio station (`Kol Yisrael') had two Yiddish broadcasts every day. Somehow, scores of Yiddish performers managed to work and make a living in Israel at that period in spite of the alleged `hostility'. In general, the relative lack of success of Lux/Burstein in Israel was due to the low quality of their acts, not the `inugim' tax. When they finally had good material, as in the `Megille Lider,' the Bursteins experienced great success.
There was some controversy over Finkel's Anne Frank joke in `the Komediant'. I did not find this joke as offensive as the obviously concocted and insincere stories of Lux on the family's `miraculous' flight from Europe. Most offensive was Lux's narrative on concentration camp victims allegedly singing her silly repertoire on their way to the gas chambers. This last tale was really bad exploitation of the holocaust for purposes of self- aggrandizing. Even if the story were true (and I do not think so) it was highly inappropriate to exploit it in this vulgar and base manner.
It is regrettable that `the Komediant' would now become in the mind of many the `historical' record of Yiddish theater on film. Yiddish Theater was much deeper, interesting, and multi-layered than this not terribly important tribute to this not terribly important family.
The Bursteins are survivors, and so we hear about their trivial conquests rather than about the much more substantial contributions to Yiddish theater of, say, Maurice Schwartz and Ida Kaminska (or groups like Artef). Even in Israel of the 1960s it was much more interesting to go to Yiddish programs presented by Dzigan, Shumacher, Segal and Rodensky, than to the miserable productions of this tired bunch. Much time is wasted in `the Komediant' on the insignificant `career' of Mike Bursteyn, the ventriloquist Susan, Susan's wedding celebration, and similar marginalia.
Bursteyn's complaints in the movie about hostility to Yiddish by Israeli authorities are grossly exaggerated. Israel of the 1950s and 1960s had Yiddish newspapers and Yiddish theater. The official radio station (`Kol Yisrael') had two Yiddish broadcasts every day. Somehow, scores of Yiddish performers managed to work and make a living in Israel at that period in spite of the alleged `hostility'. In general, the relative lack of success of Lux/Burstein in Israel was due to the low quality of their acts, not the `inugim' tax. When they finally had good material, as in the `Megille Lider,' the Bursteins experienced great success.
There was some controversy over Finkel's Anne Frank joke in `the Komediant'. I did not find this joke as offensive as the obviously concocted and insincere stories of Lux on the family's `miraculous' flight from Europe. Most offensive was Lux's narrative on concentration camp victims allegedly singing her silly repertoire on their way to the gas chambers. This last tale was really bad exploitation of the holocaust for purposes of self- aggrandizing. Even if the story were true (and I do not think so) it was highly inappropriate to exploit it in this vulgar and base manner.
It is regrettable that `the Komediant' would now become in the mind of many the `historical' record of Yiddish theater on film. Yiddish Theater was much deeper, interesting, and multi-layered than this not terribly important tribute to this not terribly important family.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
