Culture & Conversation

Mordecai’s Version? Not Quite

Early reviews of Barney’s Version (the film) had prepared me for finding the book’s most amusing attributes – particularly its skewering of Quebec nationalist politics and Canadian cultural nationalism – left out. After all, turning a 417-page account of one man’s life spanning four decades into a two-hour film demands some streamlining.

But there’s streamlining and then there’s the hatchet job. I’m sorry to say, despite the smattering of applause from the nearly-full screening I attended, the film seemed more like the latter.

The delicate artistic balance of the novel has been destroyed in this new “Version,” and this drunken lurch is nowhere better demonstrated than in the film’s treatment of Jews and women. And Jewish women, in particular.

The novel is the fictive autobiographical confession, “the true story of my wasted life.” It has a largely tripartite structure, with books based on each of Barney Panofsky’s three marriages.

Now the triangle is an ancient, mystical, and frustrating form – just ask any teenager struggling through trig 101– and still holds great attraction to us today, as morbid interest in Aniston, Pitt, and Jolie; Charles, Diana, and Camilla; or the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, demonstrates. In Barney’s case, though, these three wives are in no way a triangle: They are guideposts in the life of a man on a mortal journey, searching for meaning and love. (Hmm, perhaps more like the Father-Son than I thought …).

The first Panofsky wife is Clara Chambers (actually Charnofsky, played by Rachelle Lefevre), the hedonist of his youth, a first class fucked up bitch. In the book, she is a talented artist whose modest genius is hugely inflated by the feminist commentary that grows around her suicide – a knock-off of Sylvia Plath, with Barney cast as Ted Hughes. In the movie, Clara’s talent is not discussed and the fame that lives on after her, redacted. Not so Clara’s father, played by Saul Rubinek, who appears on the heels of her death as a bearded Orthodox Jew, unmasked in short order as another in the long line of Richler’s nasty Jewish characters.

The second Mrs. Panofsky, an archetypal loudmouthed yenta of a Jewish American Princess, is brayingly brought to life by the incomparable Minnie Driver – who really should have been cast as Miriam, the third in Panofsky’s marital hat trick.

Driver is beautiful, a great actress, and she looks plausibly Jewish … which brings me to the crux of my beef with the liberties taken with this celluloidization of a novel: In Richler’s version, Barney’s third wife is Miriam Greenberg, clearly a Jewish woman who drives a stake through the shiksa goddess motif favoured in novels by Jewish men of a certain age and stature. (And not just of a certain age either: The all-round repulsiveness of the Jewish woman is still common cultural currency, as throw-away lines in The Social Network demonstrate).

If you need examples of the shiksa goddess, think Cybill Shepherd (in Tootsie); if you need a fer instance of the opposite, please see this description of Sophie Portnoy of Portnoy’s Complaint. Then there’s most of Richler’s earlier oeuvre (e.g. the lovely Gabrielle Lazure as Pauline Shapiro contrasted with the odious Esther, Joshua’s mother, played by Linda Sorenson, in Joshua Then and Now).

But in this film, Miriam Greenberg morphs into Miriam Grant (played by the luminous Rosamund Pike). To emphasize the point, this stylish, classy and sexy shiksa’s wedding ceremony is concluded by a man wearing neither head covering nor tallit, and is clearly a non-Jewish one (driven home by the phrase, “I now pronounce you husband and wife.”)

Now, these are by no means the only flaws with this film – it seems to forget the murder-mystery plot line for what might have been an hour; it cries out for voiceovers by Barney as he penned his confessional (rather than the stilted info dump conversations it employs); and the resolution of the murder is so heavy-handed it appears aimed at imbeciles (with apologies, of course, to imbeciles). Also, Barney’s paunch in his 20s is almost as noticeable in his 60s. Which brings us to another eternal motif in the story, that of Beauty and the Beast (which was, according to Charles Foran, how Richler referred to his relationship with his beloved wife Florence).

Recasting Miriam Greenberg as Miriam Grant resurrects the shiksa goddess, just when I finally thought it was safe for this Jewish woman to head back to the movies. Unfortunately, plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

So I guess my question is, whose odious version of Jewish womanhood is this? Screenwriter Michael Konyves’, producer Robert Lantos’, or director Richard J. Lewis’?

Inquiring yentas want to know.

To be fair (and really, this comment comes 7/8 of the way through my review, so how fair could it be?), this Montreal audience appeared to love the movie, the trip down memory lane (though how COULD they have left out Duddy Kravitz’ final hurrah?), the talented ensemble cast, Dustin Hoffman’s mastication of the floorboards, etc.

Had they read the book? Did they remember it if they had (the book having been published in 1997)? Or maybe they felt the film’s poignant finale was enough, that 75 per cent of Barney was close enough to the mark.

As A.O. Scott wrote in the New York Times: “In spite of Mr. Giamatti’s ferociously energetic performance ‘Barney’s Version’ never figures out just who Barney is. In Richler’s pages he is above all a voice – profane, sophisticated, tender, mean and funny – and the filmmakers prove unable to compensate for its absence … in attempting to honor the spirit of the book, they extinguish it. It is a wild, unruly novel of character, in which the character himself is at once incorrigible and irresistible. The film tames and sentimentalizes him, and in showing respect for Barney’s author turns his creation into something unforgivably respectable.”

Harsher judgement than my film attending confreres and consoeurs. But I agree with Scott: the problem with this version of Barney is that we have no idea WHAT these three women could possibly have seen in him … of course, we do know what Clara saw, and even the second Mrs. P (who is so odious, she never even merits a name!) … but what could the luminous, perfect redeeming wife have seen in him? Frankly, in this version, that’s a bigger mystery than Boogie’s disappearance.


  • 2 Responses to “Mordecai’s Version? Not Quite”

    1. Bev Akerman

      Since The Rover doesn't provide contributor bios (hint, hint):

      About me: After over two decades in molecular genetics research, Beverly Akerman realized she’d been learning more and more about less and less. Skittish at the prospect of knowing everything about nothing, she turned, for solace, to writing. She has been nominated 3 times for the Pushcart Prize and once each for the National Magazine Award and Best of the Web awards. She recently won an Editor’s Choice Award in Best New Writing 2011 and the David Adams Richards Prize for her forthcoming collection of short fiction, The Meaning of Children. Published in The Antigonish Review, The Binnacle, BluePrintReview, carte blanche, Cellstories.net, Cliterature, The Dalhousie Review, Descant, EarLit Shorts, Fictionaut, Fog City Review, Grain, Joyland.ca, The Nashwaak Review, The New Quarterly, On the Premises, Rampike, Red Wheelbarrow, Rio Grande Review, r.kv.r.y quarterly, and Windsor Review. Her by-line has appeared in magazines and newspapers, on CBC Radio One, and in many other lay publications and learned journals. A life-long Montrealer; Beverly is strangely pleased to believe she’s the only Canadian fiction writer ever to have sequenced her own DNA.

      Find out more at http://beverlyakermanmscwriter.blogspot.com/p/wel

      Reply
    2. JumpinJack

      Couldn't agree more with your comments. I thought the screenplay was amateurish and the changing of Miriam's name from Greenberg to Grant an absolute insult. The Jewish stereotyping throughout was disturbing, a throwback to another era. I've read that Lantos went through several screenplays before moving ahead with the produced version. He should have gone through a few more. The screenwriter probably isn't the one to blame. No doubt, there was plenty of meddling from the producers.

      Reply

    Leave a Reply

    Basic HTML is allowed. Your email address will not be published.

    Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS