MovieChat Forums > Gentleman's Agreement Discussion > Mr. Green's Treatment of His Secretary

Mr. Green's Treatment of His Secretary


**minor spoilers**


I just watched this movie for the first time... one thing that irked me a little was Green's lecture to his Jewish secretary toward the end of the movie.

He made some good points, BUT... if I were her, I would have been pretty ticked off. I mean, here's a woman who has faced the effects of prejudice her entire life, and in waltzes some guy pretending to be Jewish for a few weeks in order to write a magazine article. Suddenly he's an expert and feels free to lecture an actual Jewish person on her own attitudes.

I dunno... that just struck me as exceedingly arrogant.

Anyone concur or disagree?

reply

I see your point. However, I think it was the strongest scene of the movie. And he may have deliberately been very critical to guage her reaction as part of his exploration of the issue. In fact, he seemed to be seeking out confrontations to gain the experience more quickly. I don't think he was tryijg to convey he was an expert on prejudice.

reply

It was a movie plot to try and cram as much 'message' into a relative short film as possible.
Also, rather than arrogance, I think the idea was that Mr. Green was hot on the subject specifically BECAUSE he had only really experienced it first hand for a few weeks. He wasn't really seeing it from the view of someone who has experienced this particular prejudice all his life, and built up defenses.

reply

It is funny...I have seen this movie many times since I was a child, and I always thought the scene with the secretary was rather a powerful and thought provoking scene. I still think it is, but I never thought about it from the secretary's point of view before. Who knows what anyone would do when born into the receiving end of prejudice. She was a product of racism. She could obviously be reeducated, as could we all, but her actions leading up to that point in time, were actions she had chosen, to survive amidst ignorance. Very good point atlantajoseph.

http://www.threedayblog.blogspot.com/

reply

Good point -- I can see how a Gentile lecturing a Jew about how to be appropriately Jewish could be perceived as arrogant -- she is the one who has to live with reality of anti-Semitism the best way she knows how. But her attitudes are really pretty reprehensible and just feed into the stereotype she's trying to hide from.

reply

In my mind, the secretary, although Jewish, decided to give the "lecture" because he is reflecting what I think Jews and other minorities should do when they are attacked by anti-Semitism or racism, to fight back! Also, keep in mind this movie came out 2 years after the Holocaust when America thought it fought the good fight against evil; however, Mr. Green learns that even this evil is alive and well in America and we need to fight back!

reply

I TOTALLY agree with you. You are right, he made some very good points, but the manner in which he spoke to her was very demeaning and un-necesarry. I think she would have understood had he just talked to her normally, but it seemed like he couldn't ever talk to her without shouting at her and shaking her.

reply

I saw the movie quite a while ago. One point hardly mentioned above is that she deserved to be upbraided. What she was doing was more than passing as non-Jewish; she was also adopting an anti-Semitic attitude/outlook. She objected to the firm's new policy of advertising that they were non-prejudiced in hiring because, she said, it would attract loud, wrong "kikey" types who would adversely reflect on "nice" ones like her and Mr. Green.

I liked the scenes with the secretary, and also the scene with the Jewish scientist. The movie showed many aspects of anti-Semitism.

reply

"she said, it would attract loud, wrong "kikey" types"

In other words Jews like Morris Horrowitz, Larry Fineberg, and Jerry Horrowtz.*






AKA Moe Howard, Larry Fine, and Curly; man's favorite Stooge.



reply

You must mean Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine, and Dr. Howard.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53KcqITIPlA





I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

reply


One point hardly mentioned above is that she deserved to be upbraided. What she was doing was more than passing as non-Jewish; she was also adopting an anti-Semitic attitude/outlook. She objected to the firm's new policy of advertising that they were non-prejudiced in hiring because, she said, it would attract loud, wrong "kikey" types who would adversely reflect on "nice" ones like her and Mr. Green.

... The movie showed many aspects of anti-Semitism.

I dunno if I'd call that attitude anti-semitic though. The attitude (and it does exist sometimes amongst groups who are discriminated against) is more of a psychological reaction, imho.

Like a spouse who is being battered comes to regard herself (or himself) as being to blame. ie deserving of the beatings.


But the other thing is that there seemed to be an inconsistency between the scene you mention, and the earlier one where she spoke about her rejection letters, and the fact that no-one would speak up about it.

In the earlier scene she came across as someone who opposed the system, but felt powerless to do anything about it. In the later one, she came across as someone who thought the system was basically sound.


In essence, the makers just wanted an excuse to have the Green character make the comments he did. But they ruined the secretary's backstory (which I think was unintentional), and made Green seem a bit holier than thou (which might have been intentional, to be fair to them)


reply

I understand your point BUT... I think his point could be related to black people that use the "n word" these days. They say that it's okay because they're black but don't think about how it does nothing to discourage racism overall and probably makes it even worse

reply

No, no, no, nothing at all like that. She was clearly using the k-word in a derogatory sense.

reply

Have you ever read Our Crowd by Stephen Birmingham? He makes the point that the German Jews who came to America in the mid 19th century had achieved a measure of wealth and respectabilty by the time the eastern European Jews started arriving in great numbers at the end of the century. The coarseness of the easterners frightened the German Jewish upper crust who considered they had nothing in common with them (except a religion) and worried the gentile upper crust would start lumping all Jews together. The GJs tried to separate themselves from the newcomers and joined with the WASPS in speaking disparagingly about them. Many eastern Jews, Russians and Poles, had names that ended in "ski"; so "kikes" became a GJ shorthand reference to them. The secretary, instead of showing self hatred by objecting to the "kikey ones" could have been carrying on this old nationalistic snobbery. I have heard Irish Catholics refer to Italian Catholics as "wops" and I wouldn't consider that self hatred just because they shared the same religion.

reply

I agree with you completely. It's a bit presumptuous for a non-Jew to lecture a Jew on what it's like to be Jewish. So what if he pretended to be a Jew for 8 weeks. He knew the whole time the little experiment would end and he would go on with his life. He really had no right to talk to her like that. (For that matter, he had no right to sit in on his boss chewing out the HR guy either.)

But this scene, like so many others in the movie, was just a broad brush stroke and a bit like a caricature. It was almost as if every scene was set up to teach us another lesson, as if it were an after school special. There is only so much you can cover in a movie, but watching it I felt as if they were trying to jam a little too much sanctimony in there.

reply

I agree with this comment. The movie worked better with these sanctimonious, preachy scenes than when it belabored the boring Peck-McGuire relationship. But nothing ever gelled completely, except for Holm's big scene. The secretary may have gotten what was coming to her, but coming from a perfect protagonist who had no internal conflict or character change to undergo, it seemed condescending. And there were so many subplots crammed in this movie that this scene felt rushed. She barely even communicated her surprise that he wasn't Jewish after all (and everyone else was surprised too) before he jumped down her throat.

reply

I think he was being a tad harsh, but it also fits in with the style of the movie to be a bit didactic. As for the arrogance of a gentile telling a Jew how to behave, I think you have to consider How DEEPLY ingrained her prejudice is. The thing I like most about this movie is the fact that it goes after the "nice" version of anti-semitic thinking, because having a problem with the Klan is easy, but pointing out the subtle ways that prejudice lives on is a harder fight. Green's secretary passing herself of as a shiksa is a classic example of internalized oppression, when prejudicial thinking becomes so ingrained that even the people suffering under it start believing it. It's like when Chastity Bono became the spokeswoman for GLAAD but said Ellen DeGeneres was being "too gay" because Ellen was calling attention to it. Thurgood Marshall demonstrated the effects on segregation on black children to the Supreme Court by showing that a black girl raised in a segregated community thinks white babies are prettier and better than black babies. The fact that the prejudice comes from within makes it even more important to stamp out, not less so. Pride movements are less about changing external opinion than about changing self-perception so that a community can become strong enough within to take on the rest of the world.

Maybe Green was being a bit arrogant in that scene, but on the other hand, if he was attacking anti-semitic behavior from everyone else--including his own fiancé--wouldn't it be wrong to let it pass just because the perpetrator in that case was Jewish?

reply

[deleted]