Here's what I wrote:
This is why our parents, grandparents,
great grandparents came here
.
In a democracy the major institutions are
created and shaped by something like the will of the people. At their best,
they are responsive to a multiplicity of pressures reflecting the manifold interests operating
in a diverse society. It’s a maddengly
imperfect system and one that in recent years responded less to the needs of
those who cannot wield great economic power and the political clout it bestows.
What brings this thought to mind is the unplanned
but felicitous collision of Donald Trump’s call for massive cuts in legal
immigration earlier this month with the early September schedule of Film Forum,
which features the latest offering from Frederick Wiseman and the continuation
of a retrospective of his work.
Wiseman is one of the last of the
pioneering documentary directors who created and sustained the tradition of
“direct cinema,” using lightweight cameras and sound equipment to gain
unprecedented access to significant moments in history or, in his case, the
daily life of great institutions. Wiseman’s work seldom touches
directly on Jewish topics -- although his brilliant essay in fiction film, “The
Last Letter” does so with exceptional power -- but his attitude and interests
bespeak a personality steeped in Jewish ethics and values, for tikkun olam.
Consider a brief
passage midway through his 2015 masterpiece “In Jackson Heights.” We see a few
minutes of a typical workday in the office of Councilman Daniel Dromm. Two of
Dromm’s staff are fielding irate calls from constituents. We hear only their
side of the conversations, so it takes a moment before it becomes clear what
very local issue the callers are discussing. But it is impossible to miss the
interplay of exasperation, concern and slowly eroding patience in the faces of
Dromm’s long-suffering staffers. In that single scene, Wiseman encapsulates brilliantly
the microphysics of democracy, the personal side of the political and vice
versa. I can’t think of another filmmaker working in either dramatic features
or non-fiction films who better understands this reality or conveys it more
succinctly. For the system to work at all a downright Talmudic balance must be
reached.
The aptly named Frederick Wiseman
Wiseman’s new film, his
43rd since 1967’s landmark “Titicut Follies,” focuses on a typically
diverse projectat the heart of New York City’s wildly variegated cultural
gumbo. “Ex Libris: The New York Public Library,” which opens September 13,
offers an extended look at an essential part of the life of the city. As a
repository of knowledge in printed, digitized, microfilmed and other forms, the
NYPL is exemplary, but its role as a place in which the newly arrived can ease
their way into the city is no less important. The library offers English
classes, computer classes, children’s programs, emanating from 92 branch
libraries across Manhattan, the Bronx and Staten Island, not to mention free
computer time and wi-fi, concerts, author talks, art exhibits and more.
As such, it represents
a perfect subject for Wiseman’s camera and sound recorder, a blend of the micro
and macro and a useful reminder of how American democracy should function, responsive
to the needs and desires of both the many and the few. Taken in tandem with the
older films on show from September 6 at Film Forum, ranging from “Central Park”
to the epic tetralogy, “Deaf,” “Blind,” “Multi-Handicapped” and “Adjustment and
Work,” Wiseman’s body of films offer a unique insight into the complex dance
that is required of a pluralistic democratic nation.
That dance, as any Jew
should know, is predicated on society’s willingness to welcome and to
accommodate new arrivals. One need not have Wiseman’s level of access to
institutions in order to read the historical record. Nations that accept and
acclimate bearers of unfamiliar cultures are the ones that thrive. Without
debating the substantial negatives of the Roman, Ottoman or British Empires,
each of those was a long-lasting political, cultural and social phenomenon
whose impact outlived its existence, enjoying unprecedented periods of success,
power and influence.
For a number of
reasons, I would rather not see the United States continue down the imperial
path on which we have already traveled too far. But as a haven for the tired, the poor,
the “huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your
teeming shore. . . . the homeless, tempest-tost,” we’ve done pretty well.
Reducing the number of such people that we accept or changing the basis on
which they are admitted to one centered on their ability to fill a transitory
economic role, in short, the plan offered by the current administration, would
not only betray the meaning of this country but would obviate the need for the
democratic institutions that Frederick Wiseman has painted in all their
glorious, flawed strivings.
