Saturday, January 28, 2006

Oscar Nomination Predictions

As a pop culture junkie and lover of fine films, I have been predicting who will be nominated for the Oscars for at least 12 years now. It is kind of funny, I guess, that I do this, seeing as how I have only seen a handful of films in the last six years (part of a religious conflict I may blog about later). I don't care who wins, and I won't be watching the Awards telecast, but I enjoy predicting who will be nominated. The combination of political machinations, precursor mentions, cultural zeitgeist, and past Oscar history make predicting the Oscars a challenge I find fun and interesting. I have a pretty good track record, and though there are always a few surprises among the nominees, I can usually get at least 30 out of 40 in the top 8 categories.

Nominees are announced this coming Tuesday. My predictions for this year:

Best Picture:
It seems to me that there are three films which are pretty sure bets at this point: Brokeback Mountain, Crash, and Good Night And Good Luck. Brokeback has hit a cultural nerve, and has been winning almost every award it has been nominated for; Crash is an "issues" film with large guild (and Oprah!) support, and Good Night takes on Hollywood history (in the form of Joseph McCarthy) and is directed by an actor, two of the Academy's favorite things. For the remaining two slots, eight films have a chance: Capote, Cinderella Man, The Constant Gardener, A History Of Violence, Match Point, Munich, Pride And Prejudice and Walk The Line. Match Point is considered Woody Allen's comeback film, but has not generated much love among those in Hollywood ; Cinderella Man is widely seen as a flop; A History Of Violence may be a bit too violent for the Academy, and its director, David Cronenberg, is pretty outside the mainstream; Pride And Prejudice has to compete with the memory of the superior BBC adaptation and the Jane Austen wave that hit Hollywood a decade ago - a little too much been there done that. We are left, then, with Capote, The Constant Gardener, Munich and Walk The Line - two of the four are certain to be among the best picture nominees. But which two? Capote has received rave reviews and boasts a central performance which some have called the performance of the year. Might be too small a film to gain much notice here, though; The Constant Gardener is more of a genre film than most Academy fare, but it is not unheard of for a genre nominee to be in the mix; Munich is viewed as a cold film and has been met with controversy since its release - the Academy generally likes to avoid such controversy, but they may want to show Spielberg some support; Walk The Line is talked of more for the performances of its leads than for the film itself and it seems to be more liked than loved within the industry. Also against it is that it is a music bio picture only a year after Ray was nominated for best picture. The main point in its favor is that it is a hit with the public and has just passed the $100 million mark at the box office. There is usually one hit film in the mix. I am going to go with Capote and Walk The Line, but look for The Constant Gardener to surprise.

Final picks:
Brokeback Mountain
Good Night And Good Luck
Walk The Line

6th place: Munich
Surprise nominee: The Constant Gardener

Best Actor:
Three men seem to be sure bets here: Phillip Seymour Hoffman in Capote(the role of his career), Heath Ledger in Brokeback Mountain (the kind of performance that changes careers) and Joaquin Phoenix in Walk The Line (winner of a Golden Globe, does his own singing, Johnny Cash love, strong performance). Competing for the remaining two slots are Eric Bana in Munich, Russell Crowe in Cinderella Man, Jeff Daniels in The Squid And The Whale, Ralph Fiennes in The Constant Gardener, Terrence Howard in Hustle And Flow, Cillian Murphy in Breakfast On Pluto, and David Straithairn in Good Night And Good Luck. Bana's fortunes fell once the controversy surrounding Munich erupted; Murphy is in a small film with a transgender theme - with Hoffman and Ledger in the mix, he has no chance; Daniels and Straithairn are both veteran character actors giving career best performances. The difference, however, is that Daniels is in a small film in a role that some might consider supporting. Straithairn has the advantage of dominating in a film which is almost certain to be nominated for best picture. The only drawback is that his role is not showy, and as a character actor, he will not be seen as "owed" a slot here. Terrence Howard has had a breakout year, and it is a possibility he will receive more than one nomination (also in supporting actor). It is a strong year for actors, however, and his role as a pimp is not one the Academy traditionally embraces. Ralph Fiennes and Russell Crowe each have the advantage of being former nominees who have not been nominated in a while (Crowe's last came in 2001, for A Beautiful Mind, and Fiennes way back in 1996 for The English Patient). The Academy tends not to fill up catgegories with only newcomers, and of the three locks, only Phoenix has been nominated before, albeit in supporting, for 2000's Gladiator. Crowe has been out of favor with the Academy since several violent outbursts have made headlines, and his film is viewed as a flop; Fiennes has been overshadowed by his co-star, Rachel Weisz, in the awards precursors, and has made some bad career choices in between The English Patient and The Constant Gardener. I am going with Straithairn and Howard, but Fiennes could very well surprise, and knock either of them out.

Final picks:
Phillip Seymour Hoffman - Capote
Terrence Howard - Hustle And Flow
Heath Ledger - Brokeback Mountain
Joaquin Phoenix - Walk The Line
David Straithairn - Good Night And Good Luck

6th place: Russell Crowe - Cinderella Man
Surprise nominee: Ralph Fiennes - The Constant Gardener

Best Actress:
Another weak year for lead actresses - will Hollywood ever go back to writing strong roles for women again? The locks here are Reese Witherspoon in Walk The Line (they have been waiting for years to nominate her. This is her first real serious, adult role), Judi Dench in Mrs. Henderson Presents (all she has to do is sneeze and they nominate her) and Felicity Huffman in Transamerica (generally good reviews and deglamorized performances always get the Academy's attention). In contention for the remaining two slots are Joan Allen in The Upside Of Anger, Maria Bello in A History Of Violence, Q'Orianka Kilcher in The New World, Keira Knightley in Pride And Prejudice, Laura Linney in The Squid And The Whale, Charlize Theron in North Country, Naomi Watts in King Kong and Ziyi Zhang in Memoirs Of A Geisha. Watts and Kilcher are pretty much also-rans, the former because her film is a remake and a genre film, and the latter because she is a newcomer in a meditative film with less dialogue than beautiful camera work; Bello and Linney will fall victim to vote splitting due to category confusion - are they leads or supporting players? That leaves Allen, Knightley, Theron and Zhang for the final two slots. Theron stars in a movie which tanked at the box office, but the role is clasic Oscar bait - working class woman takes on big business and wins (a la Norma Rae and Erin Brockovich); Knightley received great reviews for Pride And Prejudice, but she is only 20 and has not yet paid her dues. This is her first role in which she has actually had to act; Allen's film came out at the beginning of the year. Though Oscar has a very short memory, they are kindest to early releases in this category. Plus her film was one of the first screeners sent out to Academy members, she is well-respected, and has the former nominee thing (last nominated in 2000 for The Contender) on her side. Age, however, is against her. The Academy likes to go young in this category. If Allen is nominated along with Dench and Huffman, it will be the first time since 1992 that three actresses over 40 made it into the 5 actress slots; Zhang's film was trashed by critics, and her performance was not among her most memorable. In her favor: the film did decently at the box office and, in a decade when the Academy suddenly realized that not everyone is white, she is an Asian in a category where no Asian has ever been nominated in the entire 76 year history of the awards. I'm thinking they will go with Theron and Zhang, but Allen could very well replace Zhang in a surprise.

Final picks:
Judi Dench - Mrs. Henderson Presents
Felicity Huffman - Transamerica
Charlize Theron - North Country
Reese Witherspoon - Walk The Line
Ziyi Zhang - Memoirs Of A Geisha

6th place: Keira Knightley - Pride And Prejudice
Surprise nominee: Joan Allen - The Upside Of Anger

Best Supporting Actor:
A category which is usually very competitive is surprisingly thin this year. Sure things are George Clooney in Syriana (weight gain for a role, and current Hollywood golden boy - he will likely receive three nominations this year!), Paul Giamatti in Cinderella Man (after being snubbed two years running for American Splendor in 2003, and more so for Sideways last year, they will make it up to him with a supporting nod here), and Jake Gyllenhaal in Brokeback Mountain(though he is clearly a co-lead in the film, the Academy will get swept up in Brokeback fever and go along with the category fraud). The remaining two slots are pretty wide open. Possibilities include Clifton Collins Jr. in Capote, Bob Hoskins in Mrs. Henderson Presents, William Hurt in A History Of Violence, Frank Langella in Good Night And Good Luck, Donald Sutherland in Pride And Prejudice and three of the men from Crash: Don Cheadle, Matt Dillon, and Terrence Howard. Sutherland and Langella are respected veterans who have never been nominated. All of the attention for their films, however, have gone to Keira Knightley and David Straithairn, respectively; Hoskins is in a similar boat (though he was nominated back in 1986 for Mona Lisa) - most of the attention for Mrs. Henderson has gone to Judi Dench. I don't think any of the three have the momentum to make it in; Collins does not have a "name" and is in a small film; That leaves William Hurt and the three guys from Crash for the remaining two slots. Hurt's turn is considered a comeback of sorts for a man who had a three year Academy run back in the 80s, scoring back to back to back nominations for Kiss Of The Spider Woman (for which he won), Children Of A Lesser God, and Broadcast News from 1985-1987. His performance in
Violence is more of a cameo than a supporting role, however, and the film may have a tough time with the Academy in general; Matt Dillon has been on screens for the past 25 years, and this is only the second time he has been in the running for a nomination (he was last talked about for Oscar back in 1989 for Drugstore Cowboy). His is the standout performance in Crash; I think he is in. It's a toss up between Howard and Cheadle, with Cheadle having the familiarity (nominated last year for best actor for Hotel Rwanda), but Howard having the breakout year. Edge to Howard. I am going with Dillon and Howard for the last two slots. If there is a surprise, look for it to be Hurt.

Final picks:
George Clooney - Syriana
Matt Dillon - Crash
Paul Giamatti - Cinderella Man
Jake Gyllenhaal - Brokeback Mountain
Terrence Howard - Crash

6th place: Don Cheadle - Crash
Surprise nominee:William Hurt - A History Of Violence

Best Supporting Actress:
In a very competitive category, Michelle Williams in Brokeback Mountain and Rachel Weisz in The Constant Gardener are the only sure bets, both playing suffering wives, which aside from prostitutes, is the role the Academy goes for more than any other in this category. Fighting it out for the remaining three slots are Amy Adams in Junebug, Maria Bello in A History Of Violence, Li Gong in Memoirs Of A Geisha, Scarlett Johansson in Match Point, Catherine Keener in Capote, Laura Linney in The Squid And The Whale, Shirley MacLaine in In Her Shoes, Frances McDormand in North Country, and Thandie Newton in Crash. A case could be made for any of them to get in, and I would not be especially surprised by any combination of those listed above. That said, I think Linney and Bello will fall victim to category confusion (though Bello has a better shot than Linney, as she was snubbed two years ago for The Cooler); Gong is the preeminent Asian actress of her generation, but her film tanked, and there is too much competition in this category; MacLaine's film did not do well at the box office, and the "let's nominate them for their career" rather than the performance itself type thinking has grown out of favor in the last few years; Johansson was snubbed in a big way in 2003 when she did not receive a nomination for Lost In Translation. Her Match Point role is her most mature to date, but one gets the sense the Academy just doesn't like her much; That leaves Adams, Keener, McDormand and Newton. McDormand starred in a film which tanked at the box office, and her performance was not reviewed as anything special. However, she is a three time nominee (for Mississippi Burning in 1988, Fargo in 1996 (which she won) and Almost Famous in 2000), well-liked and respected, and has figured prominently in many of the precursors; Keener was nominated once before (for Being John Malkovich in 1999) and has had a banner year, with roles in The 40 Year Old Virgin, The Interpreter and The Ballad Of Jack and Rose in addition to Capote; Adams has the advantage of a quirky and loved performance in a small film. This is the category where quirky and small are good things; Newton would not be much of a factor, but I think Crash may have a bigger impact at the Awards than people are expecting. I am going to go with Keener and McDormand for their name recognition and solid performances and Adams for her quirky turn. If there is a whole lot of unexpected Crash love, look for Newton to sneak in instead of Adams or McDormand (which I have a nagging suspicion may happen).

Final picks:
Amy Adams - Junebug
Catherine Keener - Capote
Frances McDormand - North Country
Rachel Weisz - The Constant Gardener
Michelle Williams - Brokeback Mountain

6th place: Maria Bello - A History Of Violence
Surprise nominee: Thandie Newton - Crash

Best Director:
In one of those odd scenarios it is difficult to explain, best picture and best director never line up exactly. There is always at least one which does not match up. This year, Ang Lee for Brokeback Mountain and George Clooney for Good Night And Good Luck will match up with their films. The other three slots are up for grabs. Those in contention are: Woody Allen for Match Point, David Cronenberg for A History Of Violence, Paul Haggis for Crash, Michael Haneke for Cache, Peter Jackson for King Kong, Fernando Meirelles for The Constant Gardener, James Mangold for Walk The Line, Bennett Miller for Capote, and Steven Spielberg for Munich. With his film receiving only lukewarm support, Mangold seems an obvious candidate to leave out; Allen is more likely to make an appearance in the writing category than here (although he has been known to surprise); Haneke has been compared to Hitchcock, but his film did not get much play in the U.S. before ballots were due; I think it's too soon for Jackson to make an appearance here so soon after the Rings films, especially with a popcorn film; any of the remaining five have a legitimate shot. Though he has a distinguished career of interesting films, Cronenberg is outside the mainstream; Miller is an entirely new voice and his film may not have the momentum to push him in here; Crash seems to have a groundswell of support, so I think Haggis gets in; this may be where the Academy shows support for Spielberg - it is a well-directed film, in spite of the controversy surrounding it; Meirelles got a surprise director nomination in 2003 with City Of God. He is quickly becoming a director of note, and his work on The Constant Gardener was widely praised. I am going to go with Haggis, Spielberg and Meirelles for the last 3 slots, though I could see Miller or Cronenberg making it as well. Tough category.

Final picks:
George Clooney -Good Night And Good Luck
Paul Haggis - Crash
Ang Lee - Brokeback Mountain
Fernando Meirelles - The Constant Gardener
Steven Spielberg - Munich

6th place: Bennett Miller - Capote
Surprise nominee: David Cronenberg - A History Of Violence

Best Original Screenplay:
This one seems almost too easy. Crash, Good Night And Good Luck, The Squid And The Whale, and Match Point all look good to go. Crash and Good Night are sure best picture nominees, and well-written, Squid is a writer's film if ever there was one, and Allen is writing royalty with the most nominations for any writer ever at the Awards, with 13 (last nominated in 1997 for Deconstructing Harry). Possibilities for the final slot: Cache, Cinderella Man, The 40 Year Old Virgin, Hustle And Flow, Junebug, The Three Burials Of Melquiades Estrada, Mrs. Henderson Presents, and Syriana. The Academy often rewards foreign films which are not eligible for the foreign langauge category with a nod in the writing categories, but Cache does not have the impact of an Y Tu Mama Tambien or City Of God; Three Burials was a labour of love for Tommy Lee Jones, but he did not write the film, so there is no feeling of throwing him a bone here; Hustle And Flow is too edgy and Mrs Henderson too frothy and Junebug too small; That leaves Syriana, Cinderella Man and The 40 Year Old Virgin. Syriana is topical, but may suffer from category confusion. Submitted as an adapted screenplay, the Academy ruled that it was original (!); Cinderella Man was a flop, but Akiva Goldsman is an Oscar veteran; The 40 Year Old Virgin is not typical Academy material, but this is the category that saw a nomination for My Big Fat Greek Wedding, so anything is possible. I am going with Syriana, but look for The 40 Year Old Virgin to surprise.

Final Picks:
Woody Allen - Match Point
Noah Baumbach - The Squid And The Whale
George Clooney & Grant Heslov - Good Night And Good Luck
Stephen Gaghan - Syriana
Paul Haggis & Bobby Moresco - Crash

6th place: Akiva Goldsman & Cliff Hollingsworth - Cinderella Man
Surprise nominee: Judd Apatow & Steve Carell - The 40 Year Old Virgin

Best Adapted Screenplay:
With the lack of originality in Hollywood, it is unusual to have more contenders for original screenplay than adapted, but such is the case. The sure bets are Brokeback Mountain, Capote, and The Constant Gardener. For the remaining spots, it will be two of the following: A History Of Violence, Memoirs Of A Geisha, Munich, Pride And Prejudice, Shopgirl and Walk The Line. Geisha is not seen as a success. It will do well in the technical categories, but not here; Shopgirl is too slight; neither Pride And Prejudice nor Walk The Line are being talked about for their screenplays; Eric Roth wrote Forrest Gump and Tony Kushner is a Pulitzer prize winning playwright - that is probably enough to get them in for Munich; with stellar reviews, Violence is bound to be shown some love somewhere - Olson has been acknowledged for successfuly turning a graphic comic into an effective drama. I am going with Munich and A History Of Violence for the last two slots.

Final picks:
Jeffrey Caine - The Constant Gardener
Dan Futterman - Capote
Tony Kushner & Eric Roth - Munich
Larry McMurty & Diana Ossana - Brokeback Mountain
Josh Olson - A History Of Violence

6th place: Gill Dennis & James Mangold - Walk The Line
Surprise nominee: Deborah Moggach - Pride And Prejudice

Check back on Tuesday to see how I did! Who do you think will be nominated?

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

Don't It Make My Red Hair Brown

Nice little old blue-haired lady: "You have such beautiful red hair!"
6 Year Old Me: "My hair is brown!"
Nice little old blue-haired lady turns to my mother, who nods vigorously up and down and sighs, "It's brown." Nice little old blue-haired lady thinks we are both nuts and walks away confused.

This scene played itself out more times than I can recall (substitute any number of other people for nice little old blue-haired lady) throughout my childhood. I had beautiful red hair. And I was in denial. Who wanted to be a redhead? Ronald McDonald was a redhead, Raggedy Anne and Andy were redheads, Pippi Longstocking was a redhead, and that obnoxious kid on The Partridge Family reruns, Danny Bonnaducci. But not people I knew. Not any Jewish people outside my own family.

Certainly as a kid, with my red hair, blue eyes and milky white skin, I felt somehow less Jewish than all the curly black-haired, dark-eyed kids around me. As one of only three redheads (one of whom was my brother) in my entire elementary school, I was an anomaly. It was my otherness within the larger otherness of being a Jew. Some insisted that I must be Irish or Scottish. Who ever heard of a Jew with red hair (and blue eyes, no less)?

That neither my parents (both jet black!) nor grandparents had red hair did not help matters. Where did it come from? Techinically, there was one great-grandparent on either side who had red hair, and which, skipping over two generations, came through in two of my siblings and myself. But try telling that to me as a child. Maybe I was Irish or Scottish - or fictional!

Later, of course, I would meet a number of other redheaded Jews (and many more who had red beards, at least - the men, that is) and I would learn that red hair plays a prominent role in Jewish tradition, from Eisav through King David to Moshiach (not to be confused with Moshiak), who I have heard numerous times will also supposedly be a redhead. That red hair is associated with anger and bloodthirst (think Eisav or Erik the Viking marauder, or even King David, who found ways to channel his rage) and passion did not do much to make me feel better about my hair color, though (I have that fire, too, but it takes a lot to bring it out. A good friend with twin rambunctious redheaded 2 1/2 year olds confided that he is holding on to me as his hope that his children can grow up to be calm and mellow even as redheads).

I don't know exactly at what point I stopped insisting that my hair was actually brown, but it probably coincided with my first being called "gingi," which I was not particularly fond of, but as it was invariably an Israeli who would employ the term, at least it was inclusive - of course I am a Jew! I'm a gingi! When in Israel, even to Israelis who knew my name, my red hair took over my identity. I was not MC, but "gingi blondini," as my shade of red veers toward reddish-blonde, especially in the sun.

Easy to burn and freckle as a child, I was rarely allowed in the sun unless I was covered from head to toe with gobs of sunscreen and wore a hat - not exactly redhead love inducing. As a teenager, I would try to tan anyway, always to be disappointed by - and in pain from - my red and peeling skin.

It was not until I was im my mid-teens - when fitting in was not as crucial and it felt good and right to be an individual - that I not only became comfortable with having red hair, but grew to appreciate its uniqueness. Apparently, only 2-3% of the U.S. population are redheads, and within a century redheads worldwide may be extinct (start the save the redheads campaign now!).

I am especially wistful about my "brown-haired" redheaded days now, as just a month ago a lone white hair showed up in my trimmed beard. I have checked every few days since then for more, but it sits there all by itself. I'm sure no one else would even notice it. I have not decided yet whether to pull it out or leave it. I am in my early thirties and I am not worried that my beard and hair will turn white overnight, but will it be 10 years, 20, 30 or 40 before my hair is a mix of red and white or even all white?

It was startling to me how this status of other I had held on to for half my life is just a question of pigmentation, and how short a time it may last. I picture myself at 85, and a young child will approach me and tell me how beautiful my white hair is. I wonder if I will respond, "It's red!" and I wonder who will be there to nod and sigh.

Sunday, January 08, 2006

Conclusions Leave You Breathless: The Aliyah Dilemma

The following began life as a blog post, was reworked for an article in a magazine, and now, in light of (good) questions posed by Jameel, Treppenwitz and various real-time friends who have the privilege and merit to make Eretz Yisrael home -most specifically, "why have you not made aliyah?" - has been reworked again slightly to answer that question. I look forward to the discussion it will hopefully provoke....I would appreciate thoughts and comments. Thanks.

Each year since coming back from Israel, I look at the Nefesh B'Nefesh website, feel a pang of heartache watching the videos of families making aliyah, grow antsy when yet another friend takes the plunge, and then...I do nothing.

The issues for me are many, but I can narrow them down at essence to three: singlehood (I am adamant about not making aliyah as a single person - as wonderful as Eretz Yisrael is and as many friends as I have there, once I left yeshiva, all of a sudden I was alone and lonely in a foreign country, and most of the anglo women at my level of religious comfort tend to leave post-seminary if they do not marry, and I would like to marry an anglo), financial viability (I do not need to be rich, but I do not want to have to wonder where my food will come from each month. I have been told to come to Israel with at least $20,000 saved, which I do not have; I do not have a career which is considered viable in Israel and I am not willing to be miserable by becoming an accountant in order to be there, nor do I have parents who are willing to supplement my income every month if I am there (nor do I think they should)). The third - and most compelling - issue for me is family.

I envy
those whose parents are supportive of their making aliyah (mine are not), or who have the ability to recognize the greater good of what they are building for the future, and are able to weigh that against parental anguish(I am not).

Though my parents support Israel politically and in charitable giving, Israel was never part of our family lexicon. There were no yearly trips there, no marching in the Israeli Day Parade, no recognition of it as the place for Jews. It has become a part of lore that my parents are the only ones the Israel counselor at my day school was unable to budge when it came to sending their kids on a post-high school year, for fear we would end up wanting to live in such a far-away place. My parents have never been to Israel (my mother has a fear of flying); I was, in fact, the first person in my family to visit Israel in 3 generations. So it did not come as a surprise when they were upset by my recent three year stay there.

My parents cannot bear the thought of not seeing their children on at least a semi-regular basis - and I do understand where they are coming from. Parents raise their children with the expectation that they will always be a part of their lives. After all the love, sleepless nights, financial
output, do they not deserve to see their children and grandchildren more than twice a year? Do they not deserve the comfort of knowing that their children are nearby to help them and take care of them in their old age? Shouldn't they be able to reap the joy of being at brisim and watching baby's first steps, instead of receiving e-mail updates and a round of pictures every month? I want these things for them too...I have heard from a number of older friends whose parents have passed on that if they had realized how much their making aliyah had hurt their parents, they may never have done it. I have other, younger, friends living there who refuse to think about it, because of the pain it engenders in their own hearts, let alone in the hearts of their parents. It is so much easier, once you are there, to block out other voices a world away.

My parents live for their kids. We are the most important thing in their lives. Is it worth my parents' heartache and sadness to be in Eretz Yisrael?

The counter-argument is rather simple and straightforward: It's Israel. The Jewish homeland. It's where we belong. If we don't make the move, who will? Someone has to be first. You have to think about what is best for you, and for future generations - in terms of Torah, environment, education, connection to the land and to our heritage.

But even discounting all of that for a moment, there is still the feeling when I am there - the
feeling of belonging, of community, of being alive, of walking the same land my ancestors walked. Israel penetrates your bones, seeps into your soul. I don't have such feelings for any other place on this earth (certainly not NY, which I have made no secret of my distaste for). I have been to many beautiful places- Boulder, Berkeley, the coast of Maine, Amsterdam, Brussels, Rome - and a few communitues that I like very much, such as Baltimore, but none of them pull at me or have taken up space in my head and my heart and my soul like Israel has. I love it despite its backward third world ways, rude taxi drivers, and anti-pedestrian mindset.

How can you give up the chance to be in the land we were promised, the land we fought so hard for? Living there affords the opportunity on any give day to wake up and daven at the kotel, visit the kever of the Ari and ma'arat hamachpelah; to celebrate the chagim en masse with Jews from all over the world, to live a simpler, more spiritually-based life - are these opportunities to throw away? They say there is no Torah learning like the Torah learning in Eretz Yisrael - the kedusha is extraordinarily present there, in the trees, in the air, in the soil. And I want that, with such a longing, I want that for myself, for my future wife, for my children (be"H). I want that for my parents too...

I realize that much of this is based on how they were raised. It is a New York phenomenon. If
you grew up in the five boroughs in my parents' generation, moving away means Long Island or Teaneck at the furthest. There is no need to go anywhere else. It is not like Denver or even Los Angeles, where until very recently, if you were Jewish and even marginally observant, it was a given that at some point you'd be sending your child to the east coast or to Yerushalayim, if only to expand the prospective dating pool. My parents and their circle stayed in NY, just as their parents and their grandparents did. But why should I be bound by their choice?

My grandfather has suggested a compromise, such as moving to Baltimore or California, which would at least get me out of New York. But what room is there for compromise when it is not distance I am after, but Israel itself, and when it is not Israel per se my parents take issue with, but the very concept of physical distance? I come from a long line of stubborn people. I don't know how this will be resolved. The one certainty, though, makes me quite sad - no matter what I choose, the Israel issue is going to make one (or both) of us miserable...

It breaks my heart that I am not in Israel. I think about it every single day - literally. But for me to make aliyah, at least at this point, would require me to be married, have a viable career for Israel, and have the ability to make frequent trips to the states to see my family, or live 4 months of the year in the states. Impossible? I suppose not. But all easier said than done...

For now, the best I can hope for is that I will encourage my own children (if I am blessed to have any) to make aliyah, and join them when I am able to retire, though it makes me sigh even just to write seems so far off....