My scary love of Jewish horror

I have a confession: Even though I have written a book about zombies and co-host a podcast that is dedicated to the proposition that "Alien" is the greatest genre film ever made, I am not a real fan of the horror genre. I remember watching the original "Poltergeist" as a child and needing to keep the lights on that night.

Beyond the meta-horror of "Scream" or "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," no other subcategory of the genre intrigued me: not the slasher films of the 1980s, not the indie-horror phenomena of the naughts, not the nihilism that encompasses many horror films of the last decade.

To be clear, it is not that I fail to recognize a well-made horror film when I see one. It was that I could never understand why someone would find them entertaining. What was the appeal of watching a film like "Hereditary"?

After finishing "The Shrink Next Door," on Apple TV Plus, however, I think I now get it. "The Shrink Next Door" is not a conventional horror tale. Rather, it is part of a genre that fascinates me the same way that John Carpenter's oeuvre fascinates horror buffs: it is a Jewish horror story.

To me, a proud Jewish American, a Jewish horror story is about Jews behaving in ways that violate traditional long-standing Jewish American norms and customs. Think Adam Sandler as Howie Ratner in the 2019 Safdie brothers film "Uncut Gems," or Rachel Sennott as Danielle in Emma Seligman's "Shiva Baby" (which might have the most deceptive trailer since "Thelma and Louise").

Ratner is a gambling addict who makes some very bad decisions; Danielle is an undergraduate who has made a few bad decisions and risks making worse ones.

In both of these films the lead character takes unnecessary risk after unnecessary risk, continually amping up the stakes and the tension, threatening to bring catastrophe upon themselves and their family.

"The Shrink Next Door" is serialized television, which drags out the horror even further. Based on the Joe Nocera podcast, the show is a lightly fictionalized treatment of a real-life story: Jewish psychiatrist Ike Herschkopf (played by Paul Rudd) worms his way into the lives of his patients, including Marty Markowitz (played by Will Ferrell).

Over the course of nearly three decades, Ike helps Marty initially but then proceeds to break almost every ethical rule in the book. Both Ike and Marty are Jews, and one of the things Ike does with his exploitation of Marty is to move up the social hierarchy in his synagogue.

I watched both films and the television show through my hands or pillows or something that could partially obstruct my view - and yet I could not stop watching them. Why did I react to them the way most horror buffs react to "The Babadook"?

With conventional horror films, most of the time I either cannot willingly suspend my disbelief or cannot care enough about the characters in peril. The ones with body horror, like Cronenberg's "The Fly," are simply too gross for me to stomach.

Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

With Jewish horror stories, the fear is real but so is the fascination. I could not look away from the imminent-car-crash behavior of the protagonists. The protagonists in this genre illuminate what happens when tropes I recognize in me and mine run amok: the risk-taking of Howie, the insecurity of Danielle, the striving of Ike, and the anxiety in Marty.

None of these is unique to American Jews, but seeing them displayed with all the associated cultural totems takes my viewing of it and puts it on steroids. Now I know. While others might thrill to the prospect of the girl next door being stalked by a killer, I cannot look away from American Jews threatening to ruin their lives. This is my horror genre.

Now that "The Shrink Next Door" has ended, I hope it will be some time before this peculiar obsession of mine finds any new entries. I'll stick to reading "Empire of Pain." Surely there are no badly-behaved Jews in that book. Right?!

(COMMENT, BELOW)

Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.

Previously:
• 08/17/21:The analogy between Vietnam and Afghanistan is easy --- and facile
• 06/03/21: The peculiar pandemic pleasures of 'Madam Secretary'
• 07/30/20:Let's all talk about gold, yet again
• 03/31/20: The most counterintuitive prediction about world politics and the coronavirus
• 03/06/20: It turns out anti-populism is pretty popular
• 07/09/19: Everything you wanted to know about the international implications of zombie pig invasions but were afraid to ask
• 04/19/19: No one tell my mother about this column
• 04/04/19: The biggest strategic misread in Washington is about the other great powers
• 04/01/19: A nemesis is fine. A good news friend is better
• 02/26/19: Why I'm starting to worry about the dollar
• 02/05/18: Why I'll continue to watch the Super Bowl
• 01/17/18: The good news about Hawaii's false alarm
• 08/08/17: Princess Leia, PhD
• 12/05/16: The Orwellian nightmare for policy wonks is coming
• 09/20/16: Could the erosion of trust in government be at an end?
• 08/24/16: HUH!? Grad students at private universities can now unionize
• 08/23/16: What is it about Henry Kissinger?
• 08/09/16: A Very Important Column about . . . cargo shorts
• 07/04/16: 2016 is a fascinating year for politics, and that's awful news for political scientists
• 06/02/16: The twilight of the 'West Wing' economy?
• 05/20/16: A very important column about . . . the global governance of superheroes
• 05/12/16: Why Trump seems invulnerable to the flip-flop charge
• 05/11/16: Confessions of a Luddite professor
• 03/29/16: The trouble with writing about Donald Trump
• 02/29/16: Nobody will admit to the real reason Donald Trump is winning