Home » A stirring letter from Judea Pearl

Comments

A stirring letter from Judea Pearl — 41 Comments

  1. So this means that nothing will stop them from making an opera about Benghazi. Right!

  2. I do have to wonder not just about the character of those who write such works of “art” But the character (or is the question lack of character?) of those who would pay money to go see such?

    Do they some how or other think they are just being “edgy”? Or do they really not see anything wrong with producing or supporting such nonsense?

  3. Good piece at Commentary about the Met’s decision to stage the opera — an excerpt:

    To say that art should challenge its audiences to rethink their positions on issues or values is one thing. But to rationalize terrorism and the murder of a helpless old man simply because he was a Jew and spoke up against his tormentors does more than push the envelope of conventional tastes. It treats the indefensible as arguable. It portrays actions which are, in any civilized society, considered immoral and base and treats them as merely a question of one’s point of view. As such, “Klinghoffer” must be considered as not merely offensive but morally corrupt.

    It treats the indefensible as arguable. Exactly.

    One positive thing I took away from the piece, though, is that at least the opera won’t be simulcast in theaters around the world.

  4. A great letter by Mr Pearl. Good for him.

    Those who complain of censorship expose themselves as ignorant, or worse.

    I agree with the comment that those who support such a production with their money and attendance are as bad, perhaps even worse, than the composers, writers, producers and performers. At each and every level there was a choice. I am sure that many consider themselves sophisticated and broad minded. Phooey!

  5. The hard leftists have no sense of shame, nor a bone of responsibility when it comes to the sovereign liberty of the individual. They creatures of the hive. They give their support to those who one day, if successful, will gladly rape their daughters and sons, and saw their heads off with a rusty spoon. While glorifying monsters they cheer plays about assassinating a president (Dubya). Give them no quarter, show them no mercy if it all comes down to dust. “Burn you up, burn you down.”

  6. Great letter by Mr Pearl. In a better world, there would be enough good people voting with their feet and this “opera” would close to mediocre reviews and poor attendance. However, there are enough sympathizers around to keep this work of “art” will have enough support to stay around too long.

  7. I remember well being in a conversation with a(n otherwise well-educated) liberal, back when the kerfuffle du jour was labelling on the wrapper offensive rock/rap lyrics as being for “mature” listeners. (One of the instigators was Tipper Gore; boy was she ever on the non- pee cee side on this one!)

    My liberal friend heard what I was saying, and then responded softly in just one word, with that knowing, smug smile many of us here have come to love [sarcasm], “censorship”.

    I angrily shot back that the labelling may be wrong-headed, it may be counterproductive, it may be lots of things, but (my voice rising) it’s *not* “censorship”. (She reluctantly backed off and we went on to other matters.)

    Sometimes I think what’s shortening my expected life span is this sort of soft-headedness.

    Grr.

  8. There was a defense of the Opera at PJMedia.

    I believe that defense was mistaken because it equated Klinghoffer with a political figure. He was not – he was just a civilian (IIRC)- and thus should not be treated in this way. Same goes for Pearl.

    If Klinghoffer had been the prime minister of Israel, then maybe the production would have been justified, as leaders of nations are subjects for such productions – even if tragic.

  9. JamesB:

    I read that earlier today. It seemed to me it boiled down to 2 things. The first was the accusation that most of the people criticizing it hadn’t seen it. The second is that it’s the function of art to present different points of view. I don’t think I’d want to see something that shows the point of view of, and is sympathetic to, a psychopath, Hitler, Stalin, a child molester, etc., however. I have no trouble reading about such people and their motivations. But putting their thoughts and justifications for their evil actions to beautiful music, it gives them a sympathy, grace, and beauty they don’t deserve.

    It’s not the same—but that’s why I’m not keen on the book Lolita, which I read. Although Lolita does actually take a moral stand against Humbert Humbert, he is the narrator and a beautiful writer. It seems unbalancing; I admired the writing but just didn’t like the book. I may be in the minority, there, though, but at least I’m consistent.

  10. To those who say “it’s the function of art to present different points of view,” and so by all means let’s give an ear to terrorists, my response is bullpucky. Just how many of those attending that opera production would spend an evening at an opera that put NAMBLA in an even semi-sympathetic light — we know the answer would be none, because that would be beyond the pale. Yet somehow we got to this place where Palestinian terrorism is not beyond the pale. Reminds me of some leftists I know who simply shrugged at the horrors of the 2000—2005 intifada.

  11. This is of a piece with the crucifix-in-urine, and the painting of Virgin Mary covered with dung. Or the young-adults (?) book being pushed by the Common Core crew, “The Bluest Eye”.

    The job of these people is to profane the sacred, and then to make the profane sacrosanct.

    Ignorance is Strength, War is Peace; up is down, right is wrong; and 2 plus 2 *SURE IS* 5, if saying otherwise will get your face gnawed by rats.

    If the Libs/ Progs/ Commies can destroy all objective standards and make everything “equivalent”, then every “thing” is as worthy as every other “thing”. When there’s no Right or Wrong, nothing can be criticized, nothing can be refuted.

    They insist that ALL value is “in the eye of the beholder”, so ALL values have equal merit. There’s no virtue and no vice, no truth and no falsity, no good and no evil; NOTHING is absolute. (Except “WILL”, as in “the will to power”. Artfldgr has pretty much covered this one!)

    As we in the West have given up trying to defend the notion that there *IS* a bright-line difference between Good and Evil, we’ve lost ground to the relativists. Now we’re losing our civilization because of it. Maybe it’s time to go back to Absolutes, and ignore the Leftoid idiots who sneer at the “Sky Fairy”.

  12. Ann.
    You’re pretty optimistic about NAMBLA not getting an audience. I think you’re wrong.
    I don’t care for opera and I don’t live in New York, so my decision to never go to the Met isn’t going to make much difference. Anybody got some other ideas?

    Richard Aubrey

  13. Try producing a movie that depicts Barack Obama as a boy-craving homosexual, and that then depicts the Clintons as assassinating Obama.

    See how much the lefties might appreciate *that* “art”. See how much *they* appreciate having their minds opened to innovative perspectives.

    “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
    — William F. Buckley, Jr.

    Screw ’em all.

    (I’m grumpy today.)

  14. “Anybody got some other ideas?”

    Burn them out into the open, then 22s… taking care that your finger prints are not on the ejected cases. Why 22s? Because 22lr is relatively quiet and 22 rifles and handguns are ubiquitous. There must be 10s of millions of 22lr rifles and handguns in the country.The challenge of tracking down the ballistics would crash all the super computers of the nsa. If you have not already thought this through you need to hunker down at home and pray you are not selected to go to a fema death camp. Btw, I am not paranoid.

  15. (I’m grumpy today.)

    Unless I am working in the garden or cooking, or preserving food, or target practicing at the county shooting range I can easily slip into grumpiness. I am focused on what I wish to not rain down upon my children and grandchildren. That is my focus. Everything else is not important. You who live in urban areas should think again about your choices. There may be a tiny window for your escape, and what will be your resources once you get there?

    Its a hard rain if dear leader recks his revenge ala dreams of his marxist father.

  16. Parker….

    Cached 22s you say?

    %%%%

    The latest scuttlebutt about waiving in 100,000 poverty stricken Haitians — with yet millions more in the queue…

    Does make me believe that Barry is trying to start a race war.

    The only jobs Haitians will be able to get must come at the expense of native Black Americans.

    No small amount of them will enter the criminal under-class.

    At some point the welfare state is destroyed.

    This is what has happened to Greece. With her mild climate and proximity to Bulgaria and Romania, Greece has become inundated with Eastern Europeans and Arabs. (Turks head straight for Germany.)

    Italy and Greece are no-growth economies. They need to attract ignorant ‘talent’ like they need a volcanic eruption.

    Because of Barry’s policies, America is now a no-growth zone. California is an exemplar in this regard. Between Barry and Jerry, California is actually going backwards.

    McDonalds and Walmart are ‘tells.’ They’re illustrating just how financially pinched the average citizen has become.

    BTW, the immigrant influx will stop when the gravy train reaches the end of the line. Detroit shows us the future.

  17. Great function! This can be a sort of facts that should be embraced over the internet. A sense of shame on yahoo for no longer setting the following post uppr! Come on through plus discuss with my site couponshero. Thank you so much Equates to)

  18. has anybody actually SEEN this opera or is this just another case of ‘outrage!’ ?

  19. All the world hates the Jew, even many Jews themselves. It’s one of the Great Mysteries of Life.

  20. Although I admire much of your writing, I believe that in this instance you are simply wrong.

    First, there is a distinct difference between urging others not to attend a performance and urging companies to not perform it at all. This is censorship. I attend Live from the Met performances on the West Coast, but now I have no option of seeing this production, if I wanted to. This is censorship, just as much as Muslims keeping controversial cartoons out of the papers, and just as much as government restrictions.

    Second, I watched the movie version of the Opera and find the objections overstated, some to the point of absurdity. Some object to the title, as if changing the word “Death” to “Murder” would resolve their objections. Adding a little dissonance whenever a terrorist sings is also, likewise, unlikely to improve the opera. The creators made their choices, judge them, not some hypothetical opera.

    Third, I found the opera at best partially successful, partly due to the facile projections of “understandable” motivations onto the terrorists, partly due to the music that I frequently did not find particularly compelling.

    It is really hard to create a great opera. In many respects Turandot is a failure (the cruelty of the central character makes her irredeemable). The idea that some stories are off-limits, however, is anti-art. I am for artistic freedom and for artistic failure, because that is the only way to be for artistic triumph. That is our civilization’s way. People decrying artistic production because their hurt trumps all seemed absurd to me when riots broke out over The Satanic Verses in 1988. It still seems absurd and while I know the Pearl’s hurt is real, the idea that our cultural institutions’ judgments should be overruled by the Pearls’ is altogether wrong.

  21. Buddwing:

    “Urging” companies not to do something is not censorship.

    Censorship is forbidding.

    I am speaking in the legal sense here. Of course, in the vernacular, a person can use the word “censorship” much more broadly, for example to merely mean not bringing something into your own home—but no one would say that sort of “censorship” isn’t just fine. Likewise, in my opinion, demonstrating against a play or other artistic performance or exhibit. “Censorship” is saying it should be banned by the government, not that a certain institution should choose not to show it. With a definition of “censorship” that loose, than everyone “censors” all the time, any time any person or institution makes a choice on what to exhibit. Theaters, museums, opera houses, are not required to show every work of art or produce every play or opera that is written, or be accused of “censorship” of those works they don’t show. Anyone is free to show that work; nowhere is it prohibited (censored) in a case like that.

    Here’s an example of what’s offensive about the opera, by the way. No doubt some people’s objections are over-the-top. But others seem right on to me.

  22. I believe that one must fight to preserve space for artistic endevors, because the spirit of intolerance is abroad in the land. At Cornell and Berkeley I watched people shout down speakers (William Colby and Jeanne Kirkpatrick) shouted down by people convinced that they were exercising their freedom of speech. The inolvement of the government is not necessary when little tyrants live all around you.

    I remember the scene discussed on Ben Schapiro’s site. I remember thinking “this is tendentious and unrepresentative from my understanding of the time.” In short, I thought they were wrong and were making a poor dramatic choice. I was not offended. Taking offense at error is not helpful, since it is just an emotional response different from the emotional response the opera seeks to elicit. But opera audiences are an emotional bunch. They also average about 72 years of age, so I wouldn’t worry about them getting too violent.

  23. Buddwing:

    You knew it was error. But 99% of the spectators may think it’s truth, and it’s a lie that has consequences. It furthers the false Palestinian “narrative,” and therefore constitutes anti-Israel propaganda.

    It is propaganda masquerading as art. If the Met wants to put it on, fine. But I support people who protest the decision to do so and want them to change that decision. They are deciding to produce sonorous and beautiful Palestinian lies and act as though it a valid statement of truth, artistic or otherwise.

    That, by the way, is distinguished from people who shout down a speaker, or who attend the opera and try to disrupt it. I do not support the disruption of the speaker or the performance.

  24. A small note.
    Judea Pearl is a Turing Award winner, which is the most prestigious award in computer science. I always find it quite troubling when he is presented as the father of Daniel Pearl, without mentioning any of his exceptional achievements.

  25. The West’s “art” is as virtuous as dishonesty and as courageous as Social Justice.

  26. My liberal friend heard what I was saying, and then responded softly in just one word, with that knowing, smug smile many of us here have come to love [sarcasm], “censorship”.

    There’s nothing inherently wrong with censorship. After all, the Left censors their own evil and dogmas all the time through the American patriotic filter. If censorship was wrong, why would anyone listen to that from the evil and hypocritical Leftists?

  27. The Left is on Islamic Jihad’s side. So long as people refuse to believe ths, things will get “complicated” for them as they attempt to reduce down to simplicity what Occam’s Razor can no longer handle.

  28. Once again I want to point out that this is not a situation of “If the Met wants to put it on, fine.”

    I am, in fact, the aggrieved party here, because the Live in HD broadcast was cancelled, so I will not get to see the production. I am fine with other people recommending I not go. Michael Walsh appears to be saying I should see it. I’d like to make the decision for myself, but I cannot.

    Let us not forget that in 2006 Deutsche Oper cancelled a production of Idomeneo (Mozart!) because of fears of Muslim protests. The Met’s deciding to cancel my opportunity to see it’s own show is just caving to a different set of enforcers. Caving, I say, since the case was not convincing enought to management to cancel the whole thing, just convincing enough to shut off the out-of-towners.

    If you have not watched the film of the opera, I would recommend you do so. I think you overestimate its effectiveness and its musical quality, but also underestimate its humaneness. To reduce it to its flaws and dispose of it as mere propaganda is a lapse. Judging it based upon descriptions by those who only want to suppress it is a mistake.

    Again, there is no corner of our culture walled off from enforcers, so I defend Adams to save Mozart.

  29. Peter Gelb, the Met’s general manager said this about why he cancelled the simulcast:
    “I’m convinced that the opera is not anti-Semitic, but I’ve also become convinced that there is genuine concern in the international Jewish community that the live transmission of The Death of Klinghoffer would be inappropriate at this time of rising anti-Semitism, particularly in Europe”.

    I don’t think that’s “just caving to a different set of enforcers,” since anti-Semitism really is on the rise.

  30. Ann,

    Given that they shoot Jewish school children and rabbis in Toulouse for standing out in the street, I hate to think what they would do if they saw an opera first.

    Maybe Peter Gelb operates the levers that control the flow of hatred throughout the world. Maybe he just cancels simulcasts to get people off his back.

  31. Buddwig:

    No one is implying that someone goes to an opera and becomes a terrorist. That’s both an absurdity and a strawman.

    The point is that the opera helps Palestinian propaganda along, helps it get credibility, and encourages more and more people in the West to think Israel is in the wrong, to demonstrate against it, support boycotts against it, and support politicians who are against it. This sort of thing has been growing on the left and is now mainstream in Europe. If you don’t think that’s dangerous, you’re wrong.

  32. N-NC,

    I apologize for any strawman or any argumentitiveness on my part.

    I cannot say what Peter Gelb is implying since there is simply too wide a gap between his premise and his action. I think he is trying to compromise on a matter of artistic freedom where I believe he should be steadfast. I push back against the illiberality of those who want the production halted, because I believe in liberty.

    I used to think that most Americans agreed with the spirit of the Voltaire quote, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” but I’ve discovered that Voltaire didn’t actually say it and most people are suprisingly okay with stepping aside should someone actually require defense.

    I am very much aware of both the kookiness and the danger of those pushing boycotts of Israel and the reflexive support for the Palestinians, even when they lapse into barbarism. I believe that false narratives need to be pointed out and objected to, but “helping” Palestinian propaganda is not the same as “being” Palestinian propaganda, and the willingness of people to embrace the supression of unwelcome art and ideas, because of the rightness of their own views or the need to protect their gullible neighbors, is not something I am willing to support.

  33. Buddwing:

    If you don’t like the Met’s decision, take it up with the Met. They were free to do whatever they wanted about the simulcast, and the protesters were free to ask them not to do it.

    I’ve read enough of the opera’s libretto to think it promulgates dangerous and destructive lies about the history of Israel. If the libretto doesn’t correct those lies about what occurred in 1948 (and I am fairly certain it does not), that’s already a big problem as far as I’m concerned.

    And that’s even before we get to anything in the opera about the death of Klinghoffer himself, or the specific characters.

    I am sure the opera is very “humane,” especially to the terrorists. In fact, the post I wrote about it (not this one; the other one) makes it clear that the opera’s big message is “sympathy.” I understand the opera is not not trashing the Klinghoffers (at least, not for the most part) but that’s not my point. My point is that, as Adams and Goodman themselves said, “no sides were taken” (by them, that is).

    No sides?? When terrorists kill an unarmed guy in a wheelchair, on a cruise, because he’s Jewish? Excuse me? No sides? It’s the moral relativism and the historical distortion that I’m objecting to. That is the propaganda.

    There’s also this sort of thing, which is more subtle (and keep in mind the person who wrote the following was defending the opera, not attacking it). I think it makes very very clear the stupid and destructive moral relativism of the opera’s creators:

    Adams was somewhat more worried, and yet even as he defended the opera’s depiction of the Palestinians, he inadvertently outlined the complex matrix of domestic issues that defined its New York reception. No one was trying to justify murder, the composer argued, ‘but there was also violence perpetrated on the other side. Keeping someone bound up in a refugee camp his entire life is a different kind of violence than assassination, but nevertheless violence. I think that’s very hard for comfortable, middle-class Americans watching the world go by via their TV sets to get in touch with’.

    In Brooklyn the sweeping geo-political canvas proffered by Sellars, Adams and Goodman was received on more parochial terms. It would not be the operatic adumbration of a rough moral equivalence between Israelio ccupation and Palestinian terror alone that would outrage New York Jewish critics. What would prove truly intolerable was how the shadow of that moral equivalenc efell across an opera containing a direct, insider’s attack on their own position as passive, assimilated ‘comfortable’ members of the American bourgeoisie.

    There was a scene in the original that was cut from the current production because it had received so much criticism. I think it was another indication of the sympathies of the composer and librettist:

    …[The critic] Rothstein chose to focus on one of the most ‘realistic’ moments of the original production, an intimate family scene for a trio of soloists that was framed by the two large symmetrically constructed choruses, one for Exiled Palestinians,one for Exiled Jews, that opened and closed the opera’s Prologue. This suburban vignette, set in New Jersey, attracted little attention in Europe, even from American critics, who at worst found its ‘skittishness’ somewhat at odds with the general elegiac tone, and felt that it got the opera off to a slow and confusing start.

    …for Rothstein, the scene was not inept or out-of-place; it provided the key to unlocking the opera’s anti-Jewish bias:
    “[The opening chorus and its] empathetic evocation of the intifada suddenly comes to an end as a family gathers on a couch and chair on a raised platform in midstage. They are the Rumor family, Jewish friends of the Klinghoffers. Mr. Rumor sits crankily with a television remote control in hand, squabbling with his missus over the tourist items she picks up every time they travel. She berates him for spending so much time on the toilet overseas, and also manages to suggest to her son that he check out Myrt Epstein’s daughters. The music burbles along like a theme song from a 1950s television show, raising its voice along with the family’s. In the midst of this bourgeois fricassee, Mrs. Rumor spots an item in the newspaper about Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, and is outraged. Then, as if on cue, begins the languorous chant of the ‘Chorus of Exiled Jews’ “. . .

    The Wall Street Journal had also objected strenuously to this scene (‘so kill them for their knickknacks, these tasteless shoppers!’), but Rothstein went much further, reading the rest of the opera through the lens of this domestic situation comedy…

    When you saw the opera, did you happen to see that scene? Apparently even Edward Said thought it excessive:

    Even Edward Said, whose long review of
    Klinghoffer in the November issue of The Nation lauded the opera as a gratifying exception to ‘the neoconservative attack on the literary and pictorial arts [which] has also taken a significant toll in the world of classical music’, and who as a prominent Palestinian activist could hardly be accused of pro-Israeli bias, found himself somewhat ambivalent about ‘the studiously anti-bourgeois quality’ of the work. He had to admit that ‘in sticking to the American-Jewish, banal, middle-class aspect of the episode’, Goodman had biased the libretto against its Jewish protagonists. Even a staunch defender of Arab nationalism could not, as a New Yorker, really defend the Prologue’s bridge-and-tunnel comedy, which he agreed provided the lens through which the author meant us to view the work’s Jewish characters.

    Even without that scene, there are echoes in the rest of the work that hark back to it, although it’s now absent:

    Wieseltier, like Rothstein before him and Taruskin after him, proceeds to read the entire opera as a long trope on the opening domestic scene. The banality of the Rumors’ domestic chit-chat is not accidental; it sets the libretto’s tone, and Wieseltier goes to some lengths to discover it in specific moments in the narrative of suffering and grief that dominates Act II…

    …The Rumors have risen; they have made the leap that the Goldbergs dreamed of in 1955; but by 1991, their secular, suburban, consumer-based identity was simply no longer equal to the strain of being Jewish in America. Jonathan appears to have wandered into his parents’ living room, in fact, from another sitcom, one more characteristic of the 1990s ‘Jewish’ sitcom trend — Seinfeld

    .He views Mom and Dad, and their attempts to enfold him in an old-fashioned American Jewish identity, with detachment bordering on contempt. (It is central to the structure of the opera as originally conceived that the high tenor who plays this part later comes back to play Molqui, the ‘idealistic’ leader of the Palestinian terrorists.) At one point he makes wicked fun of the Klinghoffers, to whom Alma and Harry have recommended the Achille Lauro. He imagines Marilyn as the overprotective Jewish mother, organising a whirlwind tour for her incapacitated husband:
    Harry:
    The dollar’s up —
    Jonathan:
    Good news for the Klinghoffers.
    Harry:
    Hope all the logistics get worked out.
    Jonathan:
    Oh, Marilyn will see to that.Friday, Manhattans by the pool, Saturday, Eretz Yisroel!

    There’s much more; the essay is long—and, as I said, the author doesn’t believe the opera is anti-Semitic, and is basically defending it. But the argument of the author is so convoluted and strained it amounts to something like this: well, the Jewish characters have some good traits, they’re not all bad; and if they’re trivialized and mocked as shallow materialistic petty people, it’s only in the same way that Jews mock themselves in humor and sitcoms, so it’s okay; and the very nuanced among us can see their humanity shining through.

    The cut scene is provided in an appendix to the essay, if you want to take a look.

  34. N-NC,

    The prolog is cut from the film and from current productions and was generally viewed as a mistake. Librettists make mistakes.

    I want to emphasize that I am not a fan of the opera. I think that the view of the Palistinians contains a fair portion of mush-headed twaddle. I think that there are dramatic problems in contrasting dynamic characters who are terrorists with passive characters who are average Americans and Europeans. At best the passive characters engage our sympathies, but they cannot seem to function as more than victims.

    Moreover, I can think of other recent operas I would much rather have had the Met stage. They are stuck on Adams and have done Nixon in China and Doctor Atomic, so I suppose this is the hattrick. I wish the Met did more modern works. I wish modern works were better.

    This is all opera criticism and perfectly legitimate discussion. The opera has been elevated to a cause, however, by people who wouldn’t go to see Carmen, but who believe that they are fighting evil, so no one should see it, and to that end anything goes. This is what Michael Walsh of PJ Media calls “intolerant yahooism.”

  35. I remember an interview Klinghoffer’s two daughters (Ilsa and Lisa) gave many, many years ago. They started a foundation in his name so that he, and other terrorists’ victims, would not be forgotten.

    So, I’d like to point out that no matter what one thinks of this piece of “art” it is nice to know that most folks remember the name Klinghoffer and cannot remember the name of the barbarians who killed him.

    And, that’s how it should be.

  36. Buddwing:

    The prologue was not a mistake, not in the sense that would excuse it in any way. It was not a slip of the tongue. It was not an accident. It was not a case of unconscious writing.

    It was thought of, written, rehearsed, produced, performed, and defended (at least, before it was removed, after protests). It is no accident. It was a product of the mind of the librettist, with the collaboration of the composer. As such, it was indicative of their mindset, intent, and thought, and key to unlocking it. That thought and mindset underlies the entire work. In a much more subtle way, it permeates it.

    The reason they removed it was because it created such a furor. Their “mistake” was drawing the curtain on their point of view and thoughts and revealing them too obviously. (I write “they” but I think it actually tells us much more about the mind of the librettist than about the composer, although I doubt he objected to it; it was a collaboration).

    The scene was not part of the Klinghoffer story or the events that transpired when Klinghoffer was killed; it was gratuitous, a fantasy of the librettist, thrown in there for background. As such, it might just be the most revealing part of the entire opera.

    Speaking of Alice Goodman (who of course does not think her libretto is anti-Semitic), here’s an interesting article about her:

    She recalls seeing Holocaust documentaries as an eight-year-old. “I remember a film of a little man who’d been put in a vacuum chamber with a window so scientists could observe what would happen to him when the air was withdrawn. The whole film was shown to us as children and the look on his face is something I will never forget. Our very traumatised junior rabbi quoted afterwards the song that begins, ‘Cast out your wrath upon the nations that know ye not.’ In Hebrew it is, ‘Cast out your wrath upon the goyim [a disparaging term for non-Jews],’ which is what he said. My infantile brain thought, ‘No, that’s not the right answer.’ That thought is the thing that’s brought me here. And it has to do with Klinghoffer as well.”

    When she says “brought me here”, where does she mean? “I mean into holy orders, into the rectory in Fulbourn. It had nothing to do with writing Klinghoffer really, but I was converted about halfway through writing it.” Did your conversion shock your family? “It was really difficult. If you’re Jewish, Christianity is an apostasy. If my family had been more traditional, they would have said a kaddish [a Jewish prayer often used to mourn the dead] over me. But they didn’t.”

    We walk to the churchyard. In the driveway, she explains the two bumper stickers on her car. WTFWJD stands for “What the fuck would Jesus do?” The other, in Hebrew, translates as “the transformation of the world”…

    And yet you can understand why Klinghoffer’s daughters hated the depiction of their father. Goodman tells me they could have been involved in the project but she resisted. “They had already been consultants for two docudramas.” One starred Karl Malden, the other Burt Lancaster. “So it seemed to me they didn’t really need a third. Also, having been advisers to these docudramas, they couldn’t really say this is all a private family matter because it had become part of the public discourse.”

    But her libretto gave voice to his murderers’ motives. “Yes. It was suggested that I was making excuses for murder.” Which she wasn’t? “No, I don’t think there’s any excuse. All the hostages had been moved on to the top of a covered swimming pool. Mr Klinghoffer’s wheelchair would not go up there. He was shot below decks and his body thrown into the sea. I think in many ways he was killed as a wheelchair user more than anything else.”

    Actually, that last sentence might just be one of the most inane things I’ve ever read.

  37. Buddwing:

    You write:

    The opera has been elevated to a cause, however, by people who wouldn’t go to see Carmen, but who believe that they are fighting evil, so no one should see it, and to that end anything goes. This is what Michael Walsh of PJ Media calls “intolerant yahooism.”

    There are so many things wrong with that statement I really don’t know where to start.

    Let’s start with this: do you think that describes Judea Pearl, who has campaigned against the Met’s performing it?

    We were often at each other’s house for such dinners, parties, and special noodling sessions. These always included music that had us singing with guitars and keyboard for accompaniment. Judea is an accomplished guitar player, keyboardist, and has a great singing voice. He’s also a world class choral conductor and has performed numerous times at the LA Music Center. (I was the less practiced one on both instruments, making up in volume for what I lacked in technique.)

    Or does it describe the many eminent music critics who criticized the work?

    And what on earth do you mean by “anything goes”? Are peaceful demonstrations asking the Met not to produce the work “anything?” I’m unaware of terrorist attacks perpetrated by the protestors.

    And watch out for the use of the word “intolerant” to describe these people. Being tolerant of something means allowing it. Tolerance does not require supporting it or wanting to promulgate it. And supporting something that advocates terrorism or that excuses it, or even that gives it a sympathetic forum, is not tolerance.

    As far as tolerance goes, maybe you should familiarize yourself with the work of the Daniel Pearl Foundation, which is the very model of tolerance. But not stupid, suicidal, destructive, tolerance, not tolerance of the sort that sympathizes with terrorists.

  38. Buddwing: “I am, in fact, the aggrieved party here.”

    No, the real aggrieved party is Leon Klinghoffer. He’s dead, remember?

  39. Charles, that is most unkind.

    Of course I know that Leon Klinghoffer is dead, was murdered, in fact, in a most barbaric fashion.

    We disagree, perhaps, on the primacy of artistic freedom, with you more willing to defer to the feelings of the family than I or the Metropolitan Opera Company, but to imply that wanting to see “The Death of Klinghoffer” is some sign of ignorance of or callousness toward the actual death of Leon Klinghoffer does not do you credit.

    In the real world, this doesn’t matter much. A three-month old baby is blown up at a Jerusalem rail stop and performances of Adams’ opera continue, neither one doing much to illuminate the other.

  40. Censorship HAS TO COME FROM AUTHORITY.

    Private parties have no power to censor. PERIOD.

    So such assertions are straw arguments, best dropped — for shame.

    To argue that ALL points of view must be worthy of artistic articulation is anti-cultural… like a compass that points in all directions at once.

    And it’s in the mode of anti-culturalism that this operatic screed has been penned.

    Being a notorious librettist is a specific instance of extreme narcissism. This is a deliberate crime against culture for the express purpose of self-grandiosity. For other than this polemic, this zany creature would be totally unknown.

    Somehow I have to figure that there’s a (silent) Muslim backer for this insult.

    Muslims are engaged in every manner of cultural insults all the time: starting with the Mossad 9-11 ‘connection’, a totally insane idiocy that is sustained for years on end in the whacko pages of YouTube.

    The Muslim gambit of lying — massively — and without end — is just one of the reasons why they make totally uneconomic employees.

    {

    Cafeteria Muslims throw the infidels off the scent. They are the source of “I know a good one” tales. If they are economically functional adults — then they can’t really be orthodox Muslims. Study the Koran and the Hadiths to comprehend why.

    }

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>