Film Review: “The Rabbi Goes West” — Jews Coddled in Big Sky Country

By Harvey Blume

This is a film for another moment in time, an imaginary if not necessarily utopian moment when being Jewish is less roiled and bedeviled from within and without.

The Rabbi Goes West, co-directed by Amy Geller and Gerald Peary.

34-year-old Chaim Bruk, an idealistic Chabad Rabbi who moves from Brooklyn, New York to Bozeman, Montana.

The Rabbi Goes West is puzzling. It  is an unobjectionably good, decent, and well made documentary about Jews forming a community in the northern reaches of Montana. But, then again, it is so quiescent and bland that, in a sense, it is more than a little untimely. It struck me as a film for another moment in time, an imaginary if not necessarily utopian moment when being Jewish is less roiled and bedeviled from within and without, by Zionism and anti-Zionism, not to mention the global and often lethal resurgence of anti-Semitism.

In The Rabbi Goes West directors Gerald Peary (film writer for The Arts Fuse) and Amy Geller prefer for the most part to steer clear of such issues. Instead, the film resettles Jewish life out of the reach of turmoil and replants it in Bozeman, Montana, where the northern winters are fierce but the people — even if somewhat baffled by Jews, whoever and whatever Jews might be — are for the most part kind and accepting.

Bozeman’s Jews are in a sense coddled and protected in the same way as are the remaining elk and wolves. When Rabbi Bruk, the lead character of this film, an emissary from Chabad central in NYC, goes into a gas station to ask “Where are the Jews” nobody bristles and falls back on memories of how it felt when the Gestapo asked such a question.

However other Jews — there are already some implanted in Bozeman, centered around their own rabbis, practices, and congregations — do not necessarily accept the intrusion of emissaries from Chabad headquarters in Brooklyn. These emissaries, called shliach, have been ordained and empowered to enjoin Bozeman Jews to put a mezuzah on their doors. (That, in this film at least, is for the shliach the apex mitzvah. Others, men at least, who have encountered Chabad in other contexts may have been enjoined to think that putting on tfellin (phylactery) was the apex mitzvah. Rabbi Bruk, in this film, ignores that more complex commandment.)

In any case Rabbi Bruk goes around Bozeman knocking on Jewish doors. asking if the residents would like a mezuzah implanted on the door frame to be kissed or at least referenced on entry —  a kosher mezuzah that is, as distinguished from the knock offs being tendered for a discount in Union Square Manhattan and other New York venues, along with second-rate clothes.

Rabbi Bruk’s mezuzahs have been inspected and certified by experts. If anything is amiss in these tiny scrolls — say one letter merging even slightly into another — the text is declared  trayf/unacceptable. Bruk traffics only in the best.

Bruk himself is a stout, smart, unfailingly cheery emissary of Hasidism, Chabad style. For him, Judaism is fun, “and if it’s not fun, it’s not Judaism.” This is not the Judaism I or many others Jews grew up with but it’s the one this devotee of Lubavitch Hasidism trumpets throughout. And that tone seems to go over to a degree among the Jews of Bozeman. Many of these appreciate that Rabbi Bruk demands so little of them, and only wants that he has permission to hammer up the mezuzah and say a few prayers. But other Bozeman Jews object to Bruk for precisely that reason, in that  he offers no sense of community or continuity; his mitzvah is stand alone and in a sense fly by night.

There are two occasions in which Rabbi Bruk has to contend with contrary opinions. The first is when he weighs in on a local radio talk show to respond to a venomously anti-Semitic caller who demands to know if all Jews are like George Soros. Bruk’s response leaves much to be desired: he says he grew up in Brooklyn, has known lots of Jews, and that none of them remotely resemble Soros. Such a bland and evasive response. Yeah. Does Bruk even know who Soros is and what role he plays as central figure in today’s anti-Semitism, whether in Budapest or Bozeman? Bruk knows his Talmud in some depth but seems possessed of a childish ignorance of what goes on in today’s world. The thought that a schliach might not only know of Soros but think to champion him is far beyond the reaches of this particular rabbi’s imagination.

In another telling interchange Bruk talks with a conservative Bozeman rabbi. The conversation somehow turns to Shakespeare and what his work  has to say about human nature. Bruk thinks it has very little to say compared to what Torah says. He sneers and stomps off when his interlocutor upholds the values of the Shakespearian version.

Bruk stomping off and refusing discussion on this question is to my mind theocracy in action.


I’ve had a mezuzah on my door for a long time. I’ve also had it taken down. Taking down a mezuzah is a big deal, the complexities of which I’ll spare you here. If I wanted it re-implanted, though, I would like it to be done by someone other than Rabbi Bruk and his cohort of shliach. I’d like something less besides the point.


Harvey Blume is an author—Ota Benga: The Pygmy At The Zoo—who has published essays, reviews, and interviews widely, in The New York Times, Boston Globe, Agni, The American Prospect, and The Forward, among other venues. His blog in progress, which will archive that material and be a platform for new, is here. He contributes regularly to The Arts Fuse, and wants to help it continue to grow into a critical voice to be reckoned with.

8 Comments

  1. Gerald Peary on August 12, 2020 at 11:46 am

    Thanks for such a smart, thoughtful essay on my film, The Rabbi Goes West, by someone who knows his Judaism. I’m sorry that you found my documentary “quiescent and bland,” but that certainly is your right. Nothing to argue with you there. I would quibble about some of your factual points and your interpretations. On interpretation: When Chaim says, “Most Jews are not like George Soros,” I have never felt that at this moment he is attacking Soros’s politics (which, in truth, he probably doesn’t like) but he means here that most Jews don’t have Soros’s money and resources. That’s why he says, “They are middle class, live day to day, etc.” I can understand your complaint that we didn’t put Chabad in an international context. True, we wrestled with that but decided it was for another film. But I don’t get at all why you complain that we don’t deal with “the lethal surge of anti-Semitism.” That’s the subject of our film’s second act, when neo-Nazis come to the Montana town of Whitefish, and how the other rabbis react to it. As for “Bruk storming out and refusing discussion on this issue… theocracy in action, ” that’s totally in your head. Chaim Bruk does NOT storm out of the debate with the Reform rabbi. Though exasperated by some of the Reform rabbi’s attacks on him, Bruk stays on until the very end. Until I, the filmmaker, declared the debate over.

    • Harvey Blume on August 12, 2020 at 7:43 pm

      Gerry, though I think you meant to compliment me by calling me “someone who knows his Judaism” let me demur by saying I don’t pretend to know that much about Judaism. On the other hand — forgive me if you will about how terribly snarky this sounds — there were times watching the film when I wished you knew just a bit more about the subject.

      Moving on.

      When Rabbi Bruk opines on radio: “Most Jews are not like George Soros,” I, like you, didn’t feel he was attacking Soros’s politics. My problem was that Bruk gave no indication of being aware of them in the least, and therefore had nothing to say about Soros becoming the favorite target of global anti-Semitism. It seems to me a rabbi should be conversant with such things. But this rabbi seems content to wait until the Messiah comes. Bruk has many things to say about the happiness that will come with the Messiah.

      Yeah.

      As for my complaint that the film doesn’t deal with the lethal surge of anti-Semitism, I should have been more clear. I should have said nothing about the surge of anti-Semitism punctures or informs the rabbi’s insular world view.

      — Chaim Bruk does NOT storm out of the debate with the Reform rabbi.

      Must have watched a different film than the one you think you made. When the reform rabbi insists the views of Shakespeare on human nature might be as profound and valuable as those of Torah Rabbi Brak does in fact sneer in frustration and disbelief at such an abominable if not heretical thought and in effect shuts down the exchange.

      • Gerald Peary on August 12, 2020 at 8:14 pm

        Rabbi Bruk might or might not know a lot about Soros’s positions but at that moment that wasn’t what he was interested in. He wanted to make sure that the guy who attacked Soros wasn’t spreading his attack to all Jews. He was upending the stereotype of all Jews as wealthy. To me, that seems enough. Time to move on to another subject on radio. This is a popular audience listening in, not an academic conference. Thanks for clarifying your point about anti-semitism, and I agree with your point. As everywhere in the film, we ask the audience to make up its own mind about Chaim, and your negative reading is a legitimate response. Chaim might sneer at the other rabbi’s points, which is his prerogative, but he does not “in effect” or in reality shut down the debate. Chaim has always told me I can ask him anything, and he really means it. So could the other rabbi make any complaint he wanted about Chabad. I am repeating myself: Chaim did NOT shut down the debate. It went on until I, the interrogator, said there are no more questions.

  2. Jason M Rubin on August 13, 2020 at 8:50 am

    Blume seems to have watched this movie constantly wishing it was something else. A different kind of film, showing a different kind of Judaism, with a different protagonist, and featuring dialogue more in line with his political interests and expectations than the unscripted verité the filmmakers captured. I find little critique of what the film actually is other than the tossed-off acknowledgement in the first paragraph that it is “unobjectionably good, decent, and well made.” It’s certainly not unusual for one Jew to criticize another’s views on Judaism, but other than advancing tribal in-fighting, not much is thus revealed. In my viewing of the film, I saw Jews different from myself, practicing Judaism in a very different way than I do, and because of that I learned things I wouldn’t have known otherwise. There were times that I cheered Bruk and times I jeered him. The complexity of that response is exactly the triumph of this film, as it forces us to look inward at our own experience of being American Jews. That, to me, is more valuable than an outward glance at global anti-Semitism, a film of which would certainly have value of its own, but I wouldn’t expect it to be filmed in Montana.

    • Harvey Blume on August 13, 2020 at 7:33 pm

      Rubin seems to have read my review hoping it was some other review by some other reviewer, someone more inclined to sentimentality about Chabad Hasidism and the mezuzah mission of Rabbi Bruk. Being critical of both I nevertheless hoped to credit some of what was good about the film without wholly suppressing my misgivings.

      As for Gerry reiterating that “Bruk does NOT storm out of the debate with the Reform rabbi,” I again would beg to differ. What I recall is Bruk sneering in consummate disgust at the view that anyone could be so foolish as to put Shakespeare on the same level as Torah or Talmud. If it was Gerry and not Bruk who cut off the discussion at that point I would ask why.

      To push it further, while I have no doubt that the reform rabbi absorbed his full share of Jewish scripture, I can’t but wonder if Rabbi Bruk, for his part, has ever managed to crack a page of Hamlet or has absorbed even a single one of Shakespeare’s sonnets.

      • Chaim Bruk on August 14, 2020 at 6:30 pm

        Harvey,

        It’s always fun to watch someone opine about me and create images in their mind about me, even writing about it, without ever speaking to me. I’m glad you have assumptions about my knowledge of Hamlet or my understanding, or lack thereof, of what the attack on Soros represents.

        Always entertaining to hear “open minded” writers attack “close minded” Orthodox Jews (yes, those who are able to be respectful and dignified with those they disagree with) without the most basic liberal tenet of giving people the benefit of the doubt and the decency of asking them what it is they actually know or believe.

        I look forward to hosting you at Sushi & Whisky in the Sukkah or at our Shabbos table and happy to discuss the importance of having Shylock permeate the minds of young Jewish children.

        L’Chaim and Good Shabbos brother Harvey!

        • Harvey Blume on August 15, 2020 at 2:28 pm

          Gut Shabbos Rabbi, and thanks for writing.

          “It’s always fun to watch someone opine about me and create images in their mind about me, even writing about it, without ever speaking to me.”

          This seems a bit disingenuous. True, I don’t know you personally; I only know you as the main character — the lead, in effect the star — of a film which I’ve viewed several times in order to check my impressions. Or is it your opinion that I should have refrained from reviewing until we had a mind-meld? That would be a strange requirement for any reviewer.

          But here we are.

          Based on reviewing the film I see no reason to retract my judgments — or at least you have given none as yet. As to the much discussed interaction between you and the reform rabbi it still seems to me that you were — or at least looked to be — horrifed that he would dare put Shakespeare on the same level as Torah/Talmud. Shakespeare was but a man, after all, however gifted, whereas scripture, as per Orthodox teaching, was authored, every word, by none other than Hashem.

          Perhaps this is where I should break off from arguing and simply ask how you do evaluate Shakespeare — and any number of other writers I could easily mention — as against those writings you attribute to Hashem.

          Let me go on from here to say I often try to read the great writings in Torah as Hebrew epics, comparable at least to the best of such writings in any contemporaneous tradition. This, for me, does not diminish their appeal. At times, it only strengthens it.

          I look forward to hosting you at Sushi & Whisky in the Sukkah or at our Shabbos table and happy to discuss the importance of having Shylock permeate the minds of young Jewish children.

          I’d have to re-read The Merchant of Venice, again, of course, and might also insist on The Tempest with its portrayal of the power of art.

  3. Gerald Peary on August 16, 2020 at 12:41 am

    Jews arguing! It’s a great tradition. Anyway, Harvey, I do hope after covid you take seriously Rabbi Chaim’s invitation and you should visit him in Montana. I think you’d have a very interesting time.

Leave a Reply Cancel Reply





Recent Posts