The 'Jews and taxes' line - The Edge (1997) Discussion

[–] TermlnatriX 11 years ago

to "put off" means to "repulse" as in, someone finds it repulsive...so in this case he means to say that Anthony Hopkins is a billionaire and that he'd be repulsed by Jews and paying taxes. Which is not entirely true in Hopkins' case because his character isn't someone who is intellectually on the same level as someone who WOULD be repulsed by Jews and paying taxes. Baldwin is saying it because he is jealous of Hopkins' lifestyle and his wife.

:: filmschoolthrucommentaries ::
http://tinyurl.com/apfbv9e

reply

[–] SeasonalAffective 11 years ago

That was what I assumed, but it still doesn't make sense to me. Ok, he'd be annoyed with paying taxes, because that is a personal cost to him that I'm sure he would rather not pay, but why would Jews put him off? Even if you want to go with stereotypes, it still doesn't make sense.

reply

[–] TermlnatriX 9 years ago

Coming back to post here again. Well I think it might clear a few things up if you know David Mamet is a Jew. A lot of his writing is littered with Jewish jargon or jokes or what have you that's related to the Jewish life/culture. And as someone who's mentioned as well - Jews have a "reputation" in the business world.

:: filmschoolthrucommentaries ::

reply

[–] the_la_baker 8 years ago

That was what I assumed, but it still doesn't make sense to me. Ok, he'd be annoyed with paying taxes, because that is a personal cost to him that I'm sure he would rather not pay, but why would Jews put him off? Even if you want to go with stereotypes, it still doesn't make sense.

Actually the jew stereotype of underhanded or sneaky business deals that always end in their favor would fit for an ardent businessman.

reply

[–] luzifver 9 years ago

Hjalmar Schacht IQ 143
Arthur Seyss-Inquart IQ 141
Hermann Göring IQ 138
Karl Dönitz IQ 138
Franz von Papen IQ 134
Erich Raeder IQ 134
Dr.Hans Frank IQ 130
Hans Fritsche IQ 130
Baldur von Schirach IQ 130
Joachim von Ribbentrop IQ 129
Wilhelm Keitel IQ 129
Albert Speer IQ 128
Alfred Jodl IQ 127
Alfred Rosenberg IQ 127
Constantin von Neurath IQ 125
Walter Funk IQ 124
Wilhelm Frick IQ 124
Rudolf Hess IQ 120
Fritz Sauckel IQ 118
Ernst Kaltenbrunner IQ 113
Julius Streicher IQ 106

reply

[–] reaperize 11 years ago

Pretty sure he says "dues" and taxes!

reply

[–] thorthor44 11 years ago

Also....because the stereotype that they are shrewd with their business and money.

And possibly because they run/control a lot of power in governments and business?

reply

[–] KingsRule (889) a year ago

"And possibly because they run/control a lot of power in governments and business?"

That's simply not true. That's a fallacy created by anti-Semites to perpetuate the myth that Jewish people are greedy.

reply

[–] HarveyManfredSinJohn 9 years ago

I think the implication is that old money WASPs like Charles Moore can mostly take their privileges for granted were it not for taxation (which threatens their wealth) and the rise of Jews within the business world who are, rightly or wrongly, assumed to threaten the status of the patrician class by demonstrating that they are shrewder and smarter than them and thus destined to usurp them from their pedestal.

Although I think the line is smart it dismays me that Mamet, a Jewish writer, nevertheless chooses to present Charles Moore as the film's hero. Perhaps Baldwin's character is unfair to associate Moore with anti-Semitism but the implication exists and so it seems bizarre that Mamet would want to portray a possible anti-Semite in such a heroic manner. 

I hope this is not an example of the self-hating Jew.

reply

[–] balthazar_bee 8 years ago

FWIW, the term "self-hating Jew" is often deployed as a way of deflecting criticism of Israel whenever the person doing the criticizing happens to be Jewish. In other words, the only reason a person might be critical of Israel is because of some deeply rooted personal conflict, rather than objecting on moral grounds.

For that matter, I don't think I've ever heard the term applied meaningfully (meaning, outside of this context).

reply

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) a year ago

Nonsense.

This has *nothing* to do with Isreal.

Anti-Semitism, including, I suspect, internalised anti-Semitism, existed before 1948.

reply

[–] met76 8 years ago

Jews are not part of old money? As far as I know, there have been wealthy Jewish people and Jewish people as part of the US's elite for a long time.

reply

[–] Lavitanuova2 8 years ago

I agree that there have been (and are) wealthy Jewish people who have been part of the elite for some time. But in very small numbers. Because Jews had been historically denied positions in a great variety of professions....they gravitated toward finance; one of the few where they were accepted. That being said, I believe...in the case of the film, that Bob Green was likely Jewish himself...and resentful of the old WASP network that he saw Charles Morse as being part of. It was unfair, of course, because there was nothing to suggest that Charles was anything but a thoughtful, intelligent, and well-meaning man. Green used that resentment to justify his affair with Charles' wife, and to kill him. But he knew in the end that he had been wrong; thus his apology.

reply

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) a year ago

Bob Green could be a Jewish name, but if you're going to cast a Jewish character, without explicitly having them assert that they're Jewish, it seems odd to cast Alec Baldwin, one of the WASPiest male actors. My sense is that he wasn't Jewish, otherwise, why cast Baldwin, but was making an observation about Old Money types like Charles. Green was likely a lower-class/middle-class gentile, but he was feigning some sort of solidarity with Jews because he so resented Charles' power and privilege. In fact, that reading works well for the movie, since we increasingly discover what a fraud and self-pitying asshole Bob is. All his assumptions turn out to be incorrect.

Still, I don't care for this film. I suppose there's something refreshingly 'anti-woke' about a film which suggests that an old money WASP is more capable of surviving in the wilderness than a Black man and a working-class guy who may or may not be Jewish, especially in *this* day and age, but at the time the film was released (i.e. pre-Hollywood's turn to ultra-wokeness) such a perspective was arguably still the norm rather than the exception, and Jews and POC were still often derided and marginalised in movies.

Plus, as talented as Mamet is, his contention needed to be laced with more irony. It's presented too matter-of-factledly, rather than in a winking "I'm being subversive" manner.

reply

[–] alexjohans0n (2094) a year ago

Hopkins lives in NYC, many call it Jew York. They are fierce competitors.

reply