Fin: 10 thoughts on the continuing Jonathan Glazer story

Plus, be skeptical of casting announcements, Dan Schneider, Bill Hader, and more in the weekly notes column.

The Oscars were nearly two weeks ago, and for some reason, the story from that night that’s stayed in the news — much more than Oppenheimer’s near-sweep, Emma Stone’s win over Lily Gladstone, or anything else — is the reaction to Jonathan Glazer’s acceptance speech, after his film The Zone of Interest won for Best International Feature Film. 

In the speech, the only one of the night to reference the Israel/Gaza war, Glazer stated, 

“Right now, we stand here as men who refute their Jewishness and the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation which has led to conflict for so many innocent people. Whether the victims of October 7 in Israel or the ongoing attack on Gaza — all the victims of this dehumanization, how do we resist?”

Days later, an open letter emerged from “Jewish creatives, executives and Hollywood professionals,” denouncing Glazer. Names have been continually added to the letter, keeping it in the news cycle weeks after Glazer’s speech. 

Ten points to make about this continuing story, and especially the letter: 

1. Had I been up on stage accepting an Oscar for The Zone of Interest, I probably wouldn’t have said precisely what Jonathan Glazer said. But that’s just the thing- I didn’t win the Oscar; he did. And for all the talk about how “this is what Glazer SHOULD have said,” I’m sorry that he expressed his views rather than yours. 

2. Once again, the initial denunciations of Glazer lied blatantly about what he said, as if “we stand here as men who refute their Jewishness” had been the entire quote. It also, once again, confused the words “refute” and “renounce” to imply that Glazer had distanced himself from his Judaism, which is the exact opposite of what he did.  He denounced the idea of dehumanization, whether it’s Hamas doing it or the right-wing extremists who currently run the Israeli government. He invoked the victims of October 7, which I thought was what one was supposed to do prior to offering any criticism of Israel. 

3. I don’t sign open letters, as a rule. But I certainly would not have signed the anti-Glazer letter. Its wording is ridiculous, arguing in pointed bad faith about what Glazer said, why, and what he meant. The Oscars did not resemble a “Hamas rally,” as Rabbi Marvin Hier ludicrously said about the lack of booing in the Dolby Theater. After all, Hamas rallies aren’t known for their polite applause (or, for that matter, their elaborate musical numbers.) 

4. Regarding the letter, I’m unsure what the ask is. Is the idea to get Jonathan Glazer to apologize? To discourage anyone from daring to denounce the actions of Israel from an awards show stage ever again? To prevent Glazer from getting future work opportunities? If it’s the latter, then that’s blacklisting, something that hasn’t traditionally been great for the Jews in the past. 

5. But because Glazer makes his films outside of the Hollywood studio system and averages about one new movie a decade, I have a feeling his career won’t be especially affected. 

6. The letter succeeds in one significant way: By disproving the age-old stereotype that the Jews exercise unquestioned control over Hollywood. Because the letter contains a thousand names, yet very few A-listers and a lot more people from the small showbiz coterie (Debra Messing, Brett Gelman, Michael Rapaport, and Noa Tishby) who seem to have reinvented themselves of late as full-time Israel defenders. (Rapaport hilariously listed his title as “Actor/Disrupter,” which is true in the sense that the actor’s turn as a villain on Justified disrupted its otherwise uninterrupted streak of great seasons.) 

7. Why didn’t Steven Spielberg sign the letter? I’m going to guess it’s because — assuming the idea that he still holds similar views to those expressed in his film Munich in 2005 – he remains a Zionist but doesn’t hold the letter’s maximalist position that there’s no occupation and that Israel can do whatever they want without question. Spielberg also has praised The Zone of Interest, calling it his favorite Holocaust movie since his own.

8. Speaking of Munich, the film’s screenwriter, Tony Kushner, has forcefully defended Glazer. It was a bit jarring to see the name “Kushner” in headlines about that, before I realized it was Tony and not Jared. The former son-in-law-in-chief was last seen ruminating about the real-estate potential of Gaza’s beaches. 

9. For those concerned about antisemitism, Donald Trump’s recent declaration that “any Jewish person who votes for Democrats hates their religion [and] they hate everything about Israel” is worse than what Glazer said by a magnitude of about a thousand. 

10. Finally, congrats to CNN for revisiting The Zone of Interest five months late and running the worst movie review of all time.