Focus

Others' main criticism of this film--namely that Macy suddenly looks Jewish upon donning his glasses--is misplaced. The glasses are just the little bit of change needed to CONVINCE others he's a Jew. The scene in which he says to his boss, (paraphrasing) "but you KNOW what my background is," along with another discussion with his mother, suggests that he's had to fight this same assumption in the past. The glasses now make him look just Jewish enough to "confirm" his neighbors' and co-workers' existing suspicions. Then there is his new wife's large nose and taste for loud clothes, which OF COURSE means she's Jewish. The whole point of the film is how those little stereotypical nothings become the entire basis for judging others.

If he has a lisp, he must be gay. If he has long hair, he smokes dope. If he's Hispanic, he's got a knife...and if he has round black glasses and he's slight of build, he must be Jewish. Those statements all sound equally (im)plausible to me. If the conclusion people were jumping to in Focus was reasonable, the whole point of the story would be lost.

This movie tells the story of prejudice against jews in New York City, during World War II. It's great in the fact that I never knew such prejudice existed in our own country, and tells this story well. I would have liked to give this movie 4 stars, the acting was incredible all the way around. The storyline, however, kinda went nowhere, and the ending left a lot to be said. Since this is a book adaptation, which I haven't read, but I almost think they left out the last chapter. If there was some kind of resolution at the end, this would be an even better, fantastic movie. Should you see this movie? Great performances and a driving story, but just nothing left at the end. 10-21-02

In 1947, two films, "Crossfire" and "Gentlemen's Agreement," opened a queasy Hollywood's examination of anti-Semitism in our society. "Gentlemen's Agreement" dealt with religious bigotry at the level of high, or at least upper middle-class, America while "Crossfire" exposed the brutal violence that always accompanies irrational hatred and bias. Both films made, and continue to make, an impression.

Overall, Hollywood has left anti-Semitism in the U.S. pretty much alone. That many Jews have found success at both ends of the movie camera is well-known. That some of those Jews, many with Anglicized names, particularly feared the sting of the anti-communist fervor of the HUAC and Mc Carthy era, is a still disturbing and lasting legacy of a difficult time in our history. The controversy several years ago about the special Oscar for Elia Kazan brought the issue to the attention of millions ignorant of the heyday of Hollywood's involvement with the anti-communist campaign. Kazan, incidentally, directed "Gentlemen's Agreement."

"Focus," which is showing in remarkably few theaters (only two in Manhattan and I wouldn't bet on a long run) both exaggerates and encapsulates a strain of anti-Semitism in New York City during the Second World War that, even today, few who recall it say much about its pervasiveness.

The War Department was discomfited to learn through surveys that a surprising minority of servicemen thought the war was being fought for Jewish interests or that actually it had been caused by Jews. These beliefs, possibly spawned by the virulent rhetoric of Father Coughlin, the near treasonous utterances of Charles Lindbergh and the organized pro-Nazi rallies of the Bund (the U.S. arm of the Nazi Party), were more widespread than most accounts of the war recognize let alone explore.

"Focus" takes place in a Brooklyn neighborhood of seeming homogeneity marred only by the presence of Finkelstein, the candy store proprietor on the corner. To insure that the audience understands the depth of the community's fear of Jews, quick shots of his unmistakably "frum" (Orthodox) relatives from the Lower East Side are presented several times.

The cohort of organized thugs who harass both the nerdy-with-glasses-mistaken-as-a-Jew guy, William H. Macy, and his glamorous-in-a-forties-way, also mistaken as Jewish, bride, Laura Dern, didn't exist in New York City. Anti-semitic assaults occurred but they were sporadic and involved local youths, not followers of a priest who in the film is the spitting image of Father Coughlin back from hell.

What is so chilling is that the married couple's abhorrence of the growing and organized anti-Semitic harassment is not matched by any introspection as to the baseness of their own feelings about Jews. Both Mr. Macy and Ms. Dern are extraordinary as actors in a small, local drama that recasts their lives without, perhaps, causing them to reshape their own bigoted views. Or do they change?

This is a moving drama that invites exploration of part of the reality of World War II on the Home Front not covered in the continuing outpouring of Greatest Generation memoirs. When available for rental or purchase it should secure the much wider audience it deserves.

First I must admit that I have not read the story on which this movie is based. Secondly I have to confess that I am always highly suspicious of movies which depict actions that are supposed to have happened more than fifteen years before production and try to create an authentic setting.

That much said, I would like to explain why this film disappointed me so deeply. I presume the aim of the story consists in denouncing the outrageous absurdity of racism and prejudice and not in setting up the period piece this movies tries to be. In the center of this story should be a pair of glasses generating prejudice (hence the title focus)! Instead we have performances of brilliant acting talents such as Macy (at one time absurdly, "artfully" distorted like a comic book character), Paymer, Dern and Meat Loaf, clean sets with theme park quality, flawless fotography, brilliant colours. Everybody is striving to give his or her best – and it all confounds the issue. Ambition and ultimately vanity prevailed and killed the story to a large extent. In my opinion the whole approach to the story was a wrong one.

First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.

Attributed to Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945

When faced with intolerance or injustice, the easiest thing to do is nothing - speak up and you risk becoming an object of scorn. But when does enough become too much? Global anti-Semitic sentiments allowed Hitler's genocidal policies to thrive, and equal doses of fear-mongering and ignorance made it possible for the anti-Communist purges of McCarthyism to destroy thousands of peoples' lives. Inaction makes one no less culpable.

Lawrence Newman is a chameleon of a man: quiet and nondescript he blends seamlessly with his surroundings. Lawrence doesn't like to get involved - when he witnesses an attack on a young woman, he tells no one and goes about his business. His world spirals into chaos when he buys a pair of glasses, and is mistaken for one of "them." Lawrence's view of the world and its view of him is forever altered.

While the subject matter of this film is not new, its presentation is definitely unique. It is much easier to understand the irrational nature of prejudice, when placed within a certain context - Lawrence is more concerned with the assumptions that he is Jewish, than he is with the views of his attackers. He believes that if he corrects this "oversight" that everything will be all right, not realizing that logic and prejudice never go hand in hand.

Whether playing a schemer (the only thing I liked about "Fargo") or a down home nice guy sheriff, William H. Macy's roles are linked by a common thread -his characters share a subtle, deliberate countenance that gives them substance. Macy nails Lawrence down to the smallest detail, and says more with a furtive glance or tremble in his voice than a page of dialogue. By showing, rather than telling, Lawrence is able to share his fear and bewilderment with the viewer. The supporting cast brings the story together.

Laura Dern is compelling as Gerty, Lawrence's bombshell wife with a past. Trailer park rough, yet other worldly wise, she has also felt the wrath of prejudice as the result of "a mistake" and unwittingly exacerbates Lawrence's situation. Michael Lee Aday (aka "Meatloaf") is frightening as Fred, the prototypical redneck next door, equal parts ignorance and venom, rallying neighbours to his virulent cause. In the midst of the chaos is Finklestein (David Paymer), the focus of the aggression, and the voice of reason that raises the important questions. Paymer's even handed portrayal keeps Finklestein from becoming a stereotype or someone whose sole purpose is to engender sympathy, making his one of the strongest performances in the film.

The tight editing and close-cropped cinematography make for a clean picture with few distractions, and mixes an air of claustrophobia in with the small town USA feel - it is simultaneously comforting and disturbing. The deliberate use of harsh two-tone lighting to accentuate the malevolent aspects of the piece and the carefully scored soundtrack, are powerful without being overwhelming. Finally, the set and costume designs recreate the feel of the era, an essential component in the film's message.

"Focus'" unconventional approach in dealing with prejudice is reason enough to recommend this film. Just consider the excellent story, solid acting and look of the film as added bonuses.