Hotel Transylvania: A view at the monstrous side of current Judaism conflicts
The question often arises about what is Jewish cinema: whether it is a film by a Jewish creator or one that deals with a Jewish subject or that somehow can be identified with Jewish philosophical elements. Among the many debates often happens visibly Jewish Film pass under the radar of critics and movie goers just because they disguise very successfully and such is the case of the animated series “Hotel Transylvania”.
This successful series of films directed by Genndy Tartakovsky (creator of “Samurai Jack”) tells the story of a contemporary fantasy about Drac, aka the legendary centuries-old vampire Dracula, who is trying to adapt to the 21st century. In this world vampires, werewolves, mummies and other classic monsters are not bad. The bad guys are the ordinary people who treat them with hatred and prejudice even though they are not really dangerous and have stopped drinking human blood long ago. Drac, who lost his wife who was murdered by humans, decides to protect his daughter Mavis by creating a protected space for her far from a human being: Hotel Transylvania. The hotel serves different monsters and is run by monsters. The hotel staff is staffed by zombies as elevator boys, witches as clean maids and skeletons in the closet. But as with the little mermaid, what can ruin Dracula’s work is love (or “Zing”). Mavis the vampire wants to meet real people despite the warnings and horror stories of her father. Dracula’s efforts to prevent this fail when to the hotel comes Johnny, a young man who Trac in Transylvania and found himself in the monstrous hotel. From here the move has continued through three films so far. In the first film Drac learns to accept the romance between Mavis and Johnny, intermarriage and coming to term with the idea that the world has changed and can open a new era in the relationship between monsters and humans. In the second film, the young couple have a little baby boy who is not yet clear whether he is a man or a vampire, and the happy family is threatened by Grandfather Vlad, a dark, primal vampire in the voice of Mel Brooks himself. Grandfather Vad represents conservative values according to which separation between humans and monsters must be eternal. In the third film, after that Drac and Vlad lovingly complemented with the new family values we come to the next stage where the threat posed by human beings which still didn’t get over racism against monsters.
Dracula’s Jewish grandmother
What is it to Dracula and contemporary Judaism? First of all, it is interesting to watch the cast of actors who provide voices for the film’s characters: Adam Sandler, a comedian and a well-known Jewish director who has made several films about Jewish themes, plays Dracula. Vlad the grandfather, played by Mel Brooks, king of Jewish comedy. Andy Sumberg The comedian, plays Johnny and his little boy Dennis playing Asher Blinkoff, a ultra-orthodox boy from California. The director, Genndy Tartakovsky, is also a Moscow-born Jew.
A Jewish presence can also be found in various hints, such as monstrous Matzo-balls soup, Drac’s need to call Dennis “Denisovich”, “bar mitzvah” jokes and allusions to pogroms, circumcision, and more. But the mere mention and transmission are only anecdotes. In my understanding, the film manages to raise a number of current burning issues regarding American Jewry, tradition and assimilation, and this is worth considering.
The basic conflict presented in the film is what happens when religious and racial traditions and tensions break down on the global and postmodern humanistic ground of the West in the present era. Drac’s urge to defend his home and the monstrous culture through detachment from the outside world does not last. Drac’s process turns his attempts to shut himself off as pathetic and archaic. The power of stories of past pogroms, antisemitism (or Monstroofobia) and hostility of mankind towards the monsters are not sufficient to prevent the young vampire to go out into the world and find a mate human while the human world can contain monsters and no longer preserve cultural taste defensive. It is possible to argue whether Antisemitism has faded from the world or not (it is not), but the film challenges the very essence of counter-defense as the basis for identity formation. This move represents faithfully the conflicts of the majority of the Jewish population in the United States. The ability to justify resistance to inter-religious marriage becomes difficult both ideological and practical. A young Jew who wants to find a Jewish spouse will both seek some places and avoid mines romantic actively with other religions , In contrast to an Israeli Jew whose chances are to find a Jewish spouse.
The marriage between Mavis and Johnny is a typical interfaith marriage that marks the triumph of liberalism over conservatism. A new era comes where monsters and humans live together.
When the little mermaid fell in love with a man, she became a human while the separation between men and mermen was preserved. She just switched sides. But the reality at Transylvania is more complex. Most monsters can not simply integrate into the general society because of their appearance and physical characteristics. In other words, the general society must accept them as they are and the risk of total assimilation is not possible, in contrast to the assimilation implications. On the other hand, despite the great difference, the film creates a very interesting parallel in the second film in the series between Judaism and its enemies. In this film it emerges that establishing identity on the basis of struggle against another has serious internal consequences. The proposal for intermarriage is not only a secular, liberal cliché victory but one that says something about the development of Judaism itself. The most extreme character in this film is not Vlad, the conservative old vampire, but his aides, bat people called “trailers.” These caravans are actually an anti-Semitic version. They are antithetical and therefore their drive to separate monsters and humans is extreme and destructive and they are willing to go all the way to prevent it. What is interesting is that the person facing them is the “mixed-child” Dennis, the little boy, who reveals his monstrous skills in a confrontation with them. If we translate the parable, it is found that Dennis’s Jewishness is revealed precisely as the protector of foreigners and not the one who encourages separation and formulation: The New Age brings many challenges to Judaism, but also places it at the forefront of the possibility of “tikkun olam”. In a place where Judaism gives up its defensive stance, it acquires active positive content in the ancient tradition. The baby vampire is the answer to anti-Semitism (And can be compared to the film “Beautiful life” where the ethnic-mixed son is not Jewish and the father is destroyed by nazis).
In conservative eyes, this message is perceived as defiant and perhaps as a Reform propaganda, but precisely because the film disguises its messages in a completely alien world of imagery, one can discuss it through the dynamic processes that Judaism undergoes in the new age.
The third film: The Return of Ancient Antisemitism
The third film seemingly continues the line of the two earlier films but also presents a new surprising perspective. In this film, classic antisemitism raises its head. Abraham Van Helsing, the famous monster hunter who also became a mythical figure is still alive and is full of antiquity and irrational hatred for monsters. Not only does he show us that antisemitism has not disappeared from the world, but something is revealed that makes all my interpretations so far turn upside down. During the first two films Johnny the human who came to the hotel and married a vampire represented humankind. But when he comes to fight the monster of antisemitism while setting up his dj position he boasts of having a “bar mitzvah DJ” experience. Yes, Johnny is a Jew. Add to it that it is voiced by the Jewish Andy Samberg and you will be able to get a completely different reading of the film. Until now, the film’s liberal move has seen Judaism as non-defensive and open to a world of value. American Jewish society is in a place where the choice is whether to belong or not to assimilate. When you take into account that Johnny himself symbolizes a certain aspect of Judaism, a third, subversive option is actually opened here. When Johnny came to Transylvania he was a young man in Trac. His entrance into an ancient world meets him when he is completely elsewhere: very innocent, one who does not really understand the conflict he steps into. His image is portrayed as an Israeli guy after the mandatory service in the Israeli army, a secular man who is looking for himself in dark areas of Eastern Europe as many young Israelis do. In the tension between conservative Judaism and seclusion and assimilation Johnny becomes the representative of the secular Israeli option in which Jewish identity is a simple and naive reality that needs no justification. The State of Israel is no longer a “Shtetl” like the Transylvanian hotel, which is closing down before the world, but a real and relevant proposal for a positive and active Jewish existence that is not self-righteous. Johnny and what he represents emerge at the end of the three films as the character capable of defeating anti-Semitism in its most monstrous, racist and primal form.
As befits good questions, a popular summer film in animation may find it difficult to answer them easily but as a basis for discussion about the relationship between Israel and Diaspora Jews regarding the future of Judaism it is certainly relevant and entertaining.
