Dom Lachowicz
German 261
Essay #1
October, 2000

What's Missing From This Picture?

	Back in elementary school my teacher, Ms. Kirk, had our seventh grade class play a game she called "Whisper Down the Lane."  The rules of the game were pretty simple: she started out by writing down some short little phrase on paper and then whispering the phrase into a student's ear.  All the student had to do is whisper the same phrase to the person sitting next to him.  The game ended when the last person had heard the phrase and announced to the class what Ms. Kirk's phrase was.  Thirty-two persons later, 琀栀攀 爀攀猀甀氀琀 hardly resembled what Ms. Kirk had written down.
	This scenario isn't really all that difficult to imagine.  Often there are minor (and sometimes major) discrepancies between any account and the report of the account.   It is a byproduct of news coming from biased second-hand sources, which (arguably) all people are.   Some details get overlooked; some get exaggerated, others get added.  Modern psychology tells us to indeed expect exactly this result; as a side effect of our nature, humans tend to focus on the details that they find most interesting or most important.
	It is a humorous and interesting exercise to track any story's progression as it gets whispered down the lane.  This exercise can also make one wonder why a person altered some particular element of the original phrase.  Often when plays and novels make the transition from printed text to "the big screen," you'll notice this same effect. Sometimes characters are removed. Sometimes entire scenes are removed. Other times scenes and characters not present in the original work are added to achieve some effect in the audience.  "Fiddler on the Roof" and the film "Tevye" are stories that have been whispered down the lane, basing themselves on Sholem Aleichem's work but also freely taking influence from the hands and minds of screenplay writers, directors, actors, and editors.  For the most part, these works hold true to Sholem Aleichem's portrayal of Tevye 愀渀搀 栀椀猀 昀愀洀椀氀礀.  Often times, though, they divert from Sholem Aleichem's character and his tales.  What details are missing in these work's portrayal of "Tevye", what details have been added and why?
	Sholem Aleichem introduces us to Tevye in his short story "Tevye Strikes it Rich."  Notably, this story/scene is absent from all other "reporductions" of the Tevye tale that we have studied.  What does Sholem Aliechem gain from having this story in his collection of "Tevye tales" and what do these other works gain/lose from not having this scene?
	"Tevye Stikes it Rich" is our introduction to the teller of Tevye's tales, Sholem Aleichem.  In these twenty-odd pages, Sholem Aleichem introduces the reader to his principal character, Tevye.  Tevye is portrayed as a poor, honest, hard-working man on his way home from the town of Boiberik.  Tevye is no琀 愀渀 educated man, but the little bits of Talmudic knowledge he has aquired most certainly augment and influence - if not entirely control - his life.  䠀漀眀攀瘀攀爀Ⰰ 椀琀 椀猀 栀椀猀 瀀愀猀猀椀漀渀 昀漀爀 洀椀猀焀甀漀琀攀搀 猀挀爀椀瀀琀甀爀攀猀 琀栀愀琀 挀愀甀猀攀 栀椀洀 琀漀 戀攀 considered blundering idiot by those he encounters (and arguably the readers as well).
	It is in this tale that Tevye meets the two little old Jewish ladies that would bestow upon him his "fortune."  At first he figures them for robbers, perhaps even cloaked demons.  Upon further inspection, Tevye believes that all these women will steal from him is a few hours of his and his horse's time.  Upon safely reaching their house in the resort villa of Boiberik, these two ladies heftily reward Teyve for his time and labor.  Their gift to him: about one hundered rubles, some small amount of food, and a dried-up dairy cow.  This is the fortune upon which Tevye is to build his dairy empire in the stetl of Yehupetz.
	Maurice Schwartz's movie "Tevye" contains but bare trace elements of this scene.  Firstly, Tevye encounters three women on the road to Boiberik.  They in no way resemble the "demonic figures" that Sholem Alecihem's Tevye encounters, but rather peaceful, lost old women.  Further more, this scene in no way furthers the plot nor adds any depth to the Tevye's character.  Why did Schwartz choose to include in his movie a scene that harkens to Sholem Aleichem's "Tevye Strikes it Rich?"  I believe that Schwartz was playing to his audience.  Many of his viewers would have been familiar with (if not have read in Yiddish) Sholem Alecihem's "Tevye the Dairyman."  Including this scene, even in its brevity, gives Schwartz's film a sense of credibility and authenticity that would have been sorely missed in his audience had he chosen to not include it.  But seeing as how Schwartz's film mostly concerns itself with Tevye's dealings with his daughters and not his diary business, it is of little consequence how Tevye acquired his cow.
	"Fiddler on the Roof" also fails to include any mention of this tale.  What would be gained by including this scene?  Perphaps some comic relief and another 10 minutes of stage-time.  But like in Schwartz's movie, this scene would do little to advance the plot and character development of the principal points of interest, Tevye's daughters and their marriages.  Including a shortened version of this scene would gain "Fiddler" little.  "Fiddler's" principal audience is not 1930s Jewish America, but rather 1970s Broadway.  It is doubtful that a majority of the audience has heard the tale of Tevye, let alone read Sholem Aleichem's work.
	For similar reasons, I contest that Schwartz'z "Tevye" and "Fiddler" leave out Sholem Aleichem's "Tevye Blows a Small Fortune."  Arguably, if we never know that Tevye has acquired some amount of money, it is of little concern to us that he lost it.  To the reader of Sholem Aleichem's novellas, however, this knowledge is of some great consequence.  Firstly, this short story gives the reader a window of opportunity to peer into Tevye's dealings with his family and his implicit trusting of them, which arguably is his greatest misgiving.  Upon learning that Tevye has struck it rich, a great number townspeople approach Tevye with business propositions.  Admittedly, Tevye recognizes these as sound investments.  But despite all their pleading, Tevye gives his new-found fortune to his wife's third cousin Menachem Mendl who plans to invest in ten whatchumacallits ("his word, not mine") with it.
	These movies also differ from Shalom Aleichem's account 椀渀 the number of Tevye's daughters.  䠀漀眀攀瘀攀爀Ⰰ 琀栀椀猀 椀猀 渀漀琀 攀渀琀椀爀攀氀礀 猀甀爀瀀爀椀猀椀渀最Ⰰ 愀猀 even Shalom Alechem doesn't tell every daughter's story.  Rather, he uses Tevye's daughters as a means to shape, influence, and describe Tevye's character.  The viewers of Schwartz's "Tevye" and "Fiddler" are no worse off not knowing that Tevye has six daughters instead of three or four.  Shalom Aleichem's account leaves the reader poised to learn about the fates of Tevye's other daughters, only to suffer the setback of knowing that they never will.
	All things 猀攀琀琀氀攀搀, the content presented in each work fits well with its intended medium.  圀栀椀氀攀 琀栀攀猀攀 愀搀搀攀搀 ⠀漀爀 瀀攀爀栀愀瀀猀 戀攀琀琀攀爀 猀琀愀琀攀搀Ⰰ ∀渀漀琀 猀甀戀琀爀愀挀琀攀搀∀⤀ 猀琀漀爀椀攀猀Ⰰ 匀栀愀氀漀洀 䄀氀攀椀挀栀攀洀 瀀爀攀猀攀渀琀猀 琀栀攀 爀攀愀搀攀爀 眀椀琀栀 洀漀爀攀 漀昀 吀攀瘀礀攀✀猀 栀椀猀琀漀爀礀⸀  圀攀 猀攀攀 栀椀猀 挀栀愀爀愀挀琀攀爀✀猀 爀愀洀戀氀椀渀最猀Ⰰ 洀椀猀最椀瘀椀渀最猀Ⰰ 琀爀椀愀氀猀Ⰰ 愀渀搀 愀搀瘀攀渀琀甀爀攀猀⸀  圀栀攀渀 愀搀愀瀀琀攀搀 昀漀爀 昀椀氀洀 愀渀搀 昀漀爀 琀栀攀 猀琀愀最攀Ⰰ 洀愀渀礀 漀昀 琀栀攀猀攀 昀攀愀琀甀爀攀猀 眀攀爀攀 搀攀攀洀攀搀 漀昀 椀渀猀甀昀昀椀挀椀攀渀琀 椀洀瀀漀爀琀愀渀挀攀  琀漀 椀渀挀氀甀搀攀⸀  䄀渀搀 椀渀 琀栀攀 攀渀搀Ⰰ 䤀 琀栀椀渀欀 琀栀愀琀 琀栀攀礀 愀爀攀 渀漀 眀漀爀猀攀 漀昀昀 昀漀爀 渀漀琀 椀渀挀氀甀搀椀渀最 琀栀攀洀⸀  䤀琀 椀猀渀✀琀 漀昀琀攀渀 愀 猀琀漀爀礀 琀栀愀琀 最攀琀猀 眀栀椀猀瀀攀爀攀搀 搀漀眀渀 琀栀攀 氀愀渀攀 爀攀琀愀椀渀猀 猀漀 洀甀挀栀 漀昀 琀栀攀 漀爀椀最椀渀愀氀 挀漀渀琀攀渀琀⸀  匀漀洀攀琀椀洀攀猀 琀栀攀 眀漀爀氀搀 樀甀猀琀 渀攀攀搀猀 愀 眀愀礀 漀昀 爀攀瀀栀爀愀猀椀渀最 琀栀愀琀 眀栀椀挀栀 椀琀 愀氀爀攀愀搀礀 欀渀漀眀猀⸀