Helloturia I have absolutely never seen anything like this movie before. You have to see this movie.

Lollivan It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Frances Chung Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Jakester One of the better TV movies ever made about a current political issue. The issues are dramatized vividly - freedom of assembly vs. the rights of a community. The performances are consistently excellent. I would especially cite Danny Kaye, whose portrayal of quivering outrage is one of the great moments of his wonderful career. I was interested to read about the career of the screenwriter, Ernest Kinoy. Among his many credits are a couple of episodes of the excellent short-lived series "The Senator" (part of "The Bold Ones"), very much a "ripped from the headlines" series. So too with this movie.

Rodrigo Amaro Deep thinkers will be fascinated, appalled and intrigued, all those reactions at the same time, with "Skokie", movie based on a true story that for the most part we wished it could be an very imaginative fiction. It retells the events surrounding an American Nazist group who decided to march on the streets of Skokie, a town whose majority of habitants consists of Jewish people, most of them Holocaust survivors. If only the story would stop right there because you already have one major conflict to give your food for thought. There's a whole tension involved, politically specially, since the town's mayor is trying to make anything to secure his citizens that such march won't occur and if it does happen no violence will take place. The Nazi leader (George Dzundza) says it's his right as an American citizen to have his free speech; the Jewish community are really afraid of such atrocious act, harmful enough just in being thought about it; and they already made clear that if that march occur they won't stand there peacefully, they'll react against it with all of their forces. As one of the most respected leaders (Danny Kaye) says: "We'll attack them with baseball bats!". The case goes to court where it will be decided if such rally is valid or not and if hurts the freedom of speech rights. This is where the story gets really interesting, unbelievable yet it's the truth, one of those life ironies that can't be easily understood: the American Nazi's decided to file a lawsuit against the Jewish community of Skokie by calling on their behalf the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to help them, and they're getting represented by a Jewish lawyer (John Rubinstein) who firmly believes that the law must be respected above all, he sees that there is interference with free speech and he decides to go forward with this process, which goes against what most of his associates think, creating a difficult problem in the union since the majority of people who support them are Jewish just like him and they wouldn't want to be known as the ones who defended people who go against everything they are and stand for.Only with such plot and presentation of facts "Skokie" would already be something to be seen. But the cast makes it more involving, a true must-see. Carl Reiner, Eli Wallach and Brian Dennehy are great in the supporting roles, and veteran Lee Strasberg steals the show with just one scene in one of his final performances. But the main focus of our attention is comic Danny Kaye, playing a dramatic role of many dimensions, a man who went through a lot in his life, only trying to live peacefully but when hearing about the rally he's very vocal against it, and decides he won't tolerate that. Some find his performance a little over-the-top but it's not. It's very effective, one of the greatest things about this film. Here's a quality TV film, very well made and with plenty of things to say about ethics, laws interpretations (they're never so black and white/right or left as one can imagine it is). The whole argument of what free speech really is and the rights of certain groups against others, it's very provoking to see and deal with it. 10/10

theowinthrop In Danny Kaye's career (despite what is said on this thread) he made two dramatic and one half dramatic performances in movies. The half dramatic performance was in the film ME AND THE COLONEL, a comedy with Curt Jurgens based on a play by Franz Werfel, JACOBOWSKI UND DER OBERST (JACOBOWSKI AND THE COLONEL) about a Jew and and anti - Semitic Polish officer fleeing Warsaw in 1941 to avoid death by the Nazis. Though it has funny moments in it, the threat of Nazi brutality, and Jurgens slow change to respect and friendship for the Jewish Kaye actually made the story serious. Similarly Kaye's performance in THE MADWOMAN OF CHALLOT was also serious, as his big scenes dealt with the loss of the individual personalities of the different sections of Paris (as shown in their distinct garbage - he is a rag picker) and in his demonic (no better way of describing it) performance as the symbolic defender of the villains of the piece, on trial for their lives.SKOKIE was Kaye's final movie (not his last appearance on television). It was a major performance - this time in center stage and no clowning involved. It returned to the subject matter of JACOBOWSKI, but brought it up to date.It was based on a notorious incident of the late 1970s in Illinois. A resurgence of the American Nazi Party decided to have a march, and for added interest (as well as putting salt on wounds) it was marching not in Chicago but in a quiet area near the city called Skokie, which was where a large number of Jews - many European survivors and refugees of the Holacaust - lived. The Jews in the community were angered by this move, and fought it. But, after court action, the march was allowed. However, when the Nazis came to march they found hundreds of Jews on all sides of the street glaring at them. They completed the march, but the Nazis were thoroughly unnerved by the experience.Kaye is one of the survivors of the original Nazis and their activities in the 1940s. He is absolutely opposed to this march - he becomes the most outspoken opponent of it. He knows what quiet acquiescence to this garbage means - the Jews in Europe were quiet, too quiet, and it cost six million lives. The pressures of the re-occurrence hits his family, as his wife (Kim Hunter) also a survivor, begins collapsing under the strain - she's reliving the nightmare all over again. She feels it can happen here, and Kaye is determined that it shall not.George Dzunga is the local Nazi leader, who carefully planned the choice of Skokie to give the maximum hurt to the Jews he could. He also chooses the attorneys of the American Civil Liberties Union to represent his "fight for freedom of speech" argument. And to add icing to his evil, he chooses John Rubenstein, a Jewish - American attorney at the A.C.L.U. to be his attorney. Rubenstein and his mentor Eli Wallach are confronting the situation, but determined to do what their organization sees as it's role - safeguard the Bill of Rights against all attacks. And, as I said at the start of this review, they do win the court victory, but the Nazis find the victory more unsettling than they expected.The film also demonstrated something that is not usually discussed when dealing with the A.C.L.U. That organization always pushes the envelope a bit to make it's point about our rights - and sometimes goes beyond common sense. In a mostly secular America, some Christmas crèches don't have to be taken away because they violate church and state (if the A.C.L.U. actually believes in separation on that issue, why not demand that Christmas be returned to a solely Christian holiday rather than allow the courts and government buildings being closed - obviously their membership benefit by the holiday as well - I think they call that hypocrisy?). Inevitably when you are defending "rights" you are going to be tramping on people's toes. Most of us don't mind when it is an unpopular or static group (like a business who has some hiring policy that is questionable), but if you see that a large minority is being insulted by a "rights" issue the A.C.L.U. is involved in, you can see why that organization really needs to reevaluate what it is doing. But it won't.They were defending hate speech here - anti - Semitic material that Hitler would have been proud of. The A.C.L.U. would have said that our right to free speech is universal. But if that is true, the speech is unlimited - and I don't feel that that was the original intention. If the Skokie marchers had been met by thousands of hidden supporters, who were armed and went on a rampage of killing Jews afterward, the fine idea of defending such speech would have been meaningless. And just because it did not happen, does not mean that it can't.The film tackled this as well. Both Rubenstein and Eli Wallach face a double whammy in the course of the story. Both are Jews, and neither really love their client. It's their duty to do what they do for the Bill of Rights. But then the A.C.L.U. coffers suffered. Many Jews had been contributors until Skokie happened - now they felt obliged not to because it was taking a "pro-Nazi" stand. The A.C.L.U. would suffer financially for years for this blunder. Then the Skokie residence countered by a demand to know if the A.C.L.U. was denying the Holacaust occurred (as the Nazis claimed). Although they win the case, they realize they have lost tremendous credibility with former supporters.SKOKIE was a pretty fine movie - and well worth watching. It also leaves the issue of whether Free Speech is unlimited or not open even as the film ends.

AlanSKaufman One day in November 1980 my mother phoned my Chicago office. She had read a newspaper report about a call for TV movie extras being held that evening at a Skokie auditorium. The proposed film, titled Skokie, would detail the late 1970's effort by the Chicago suburb to prevent a march in its large Jewish community by a neo-Nazi group. Although I then lived in Skokie, I had only heard about the commotion through the media.I fantasized about starring in a movie despite having no acting experience other than grade school plays. Having accumulated much vacation time I was able to take off from work. So I attended the call not knowing what exactly to expect. The long lines moved rather quickly. The interview itself was short, and people were preferred who simply could fit and dress themselves for the part. For example, in real life I was a lawyer, so they assigned me to a court room scene where I played a second assistant attorney.Extras had no speaking role, but you can see me sitting near Eli Wallach for about 10 minutes, which shoot took two days at a courthouse in Evanston, Illinois. Between takes, extras observed the intricate technical proceedings and got to chat with many of the cast and crew on the set. Makeup was frequently applied to our faces covering up five o'clock shadow or sweat. We were fed a light breakfast and full lunch, but dinner hour came and went. Certain actors kept forgetting their lines, tempers flared as the evening wore on. At the end of the first day as we were reminded to wear the same clothes for the next day's finish, one man jokingly asked if we could at least change our underwear.Several of us extras, especially those who were prompt and didn't complain about the long schedules, were asked to be in additional scenes. I appeared in two town meeting sequences filmed in a Skokie synagogue, and in a political rally where we sang patriotically in front of the actual Skokie village hall. Skokie's mayor visited us and greeted the actor portraying him, Ed Flanders, later Dr. Westphall of St. Elsewhere. Many extras were in fact concentration camp survivors living in Skokie. There was an authentic intensity underlying the crowd scenes so the "acting" seemed for real.When I first viewed the movie, telecast on CBS in 1981, I focused strictly on searching for myself. Only mom recognized me at every shot even catching one I missed. My other family and friends concentrated on the story. Using a Betamax I taped the program, eventually putting it away with my other mementos. In 2003, while browsing a video store, I discovered the Skokie DVD and snatched the two shelf copies. I found the disc quality superb and located every semblance of my younger self. In comparison I played the tape and was shocked at how badly it had deteriorated. DVDs are hoped to have a longer life.Of course the movie Skokie has its flaws. But in retrospect the melodramatic moments seem very true. The film illustrates the dangers to yourself when the rights of others are assaulted. Experiencing Skokie, I felt aware. Watching Skokie, so might you.