Jump to content


Met Opera 2014-2015 Season


  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#16 kfw

kfw

    Sapphire Circle

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,313 posts

Posted 18 June 2014 - 10:33 AM

No, the Met's statement doesn't defame Adams. The statements that made the Met cancel the HD defame Adams and his work by characterizing them as anti-semitic, and the ADL refused to take a principled stand.



#17 Helene

Helene

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,248 posts

Posted 18 June 2014 - 03:57 PM

Please link to any statement that calls the "Death of Klinghoffer" anti-Semitic. 

 

ADL press release,

 

Lisa and Ilsa Klinghoffer stated: “The Death of Klinghoffer” perverts the terrorist murder of our father and attempts to romanticize, rationalize, legitimize and explain it. The political approach of the composer and librettist is evident with the opera’s disingenuous and dangerous juxtaposition of the plight of the Palestinian people with the coldblooded, terrorist murder of an innocent disabled American Jew,"

 

and the ADL National Director stated,

 

“Serious concerns remain about this opera and we are aware that this decision will not satisfy all of the Met’s critics,” Mr. Foxman said. “Yet it does ensure that the opera will have far less of an impact beyond the walls of the opera house at Lincoln Center,”

 

as well as expressing concern that the broadcast will enflame anti-Semitism.
 
No where do either state that the opera is anti-Semitic.  They don't even state that it's anti-Israel.
 
The Klinghoffer family has the right to its opinion about the content of the opera, just as people who knew Margot Fonteyn believe that several recent bios and documentaries do not depict her accurately.  The family has every right to put any legal kind of pressure to keep it from being shown. 
 

 
Librettist Alice Goodman called the decision “wrong and contradictory” and admitted surprise "that the Met did not have a plan in place as to how it was going to address the controversy that this opera always brings with it."

 

http://www.theguardi...offer-simulcast

 

The text which I've bolded speaks to the heart of the matter:  the views of the Klinghoffer family have been well known from the start, and the Met didn't make an informed decision in the first place, whether they decided to go ahead with it or skip it. 



#18 kfw

kfw

    Sapphire Circle

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,313 posts

Posted 18 June 2014 - 05:26 PM

Please link to any statement that calls the "Death of Klinghoffer" anti-Semitic. 

 

We don't have those statements, or communications, because the Met hasn't released them.

 

But again, I fault the ADL not for calling the opera anti-semitic, which it didn't do, but for what it refused to say to the opera's critics, even though it said it in its press release - that the opera is not anti-semitic. 

 

The Klinghoffer family has the right to its opinion about the content of the opera, just as people who knew Margot Fonteyn believe that several recent bios and documentaries do not depict her accurately. The family has every right to put any legal kind of pressure to keep it from being shown. 

 

Sure, they have every right, and I don't blame them for coming to the opinion they hold. They can't be expected to view the opera dispassionately. The ADL, like any other interest group, can be faulted when it puts immediate self-interest over principle. And as we know, standing for principle is ultimately in one's self-interest.



#19 Helene

Helene

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,248 posts

Posted 18 June 2014 - 09:30 PM

But again, I fault the ADL not for calling the opera anti-semitic, which it didn't do, but for what it refused to say to the opera's critics, even though it said it in its press release - that the opera is not anti-semitic.

Why should it have to say that the opera is not anti-semitic? Their mission is broader -- five-prong -- in which anti-Semitism is just one category. They listed their specific objection in their own press-release, which falls under the "Israel and International" category, and they support the Klinghoffer daughters' assessment of the work:

The Klinghoffer family's main concern regards the Opera's juxtaposition of the plight of the Palestinian people with the coldblooded murder of an innocent disabled American Jew. They feel the Opera attempts to take this brutal act of terrorism and rationalize, legitimize, and explain it.


Why would they have to list all the things the opera isn't and that aren't part of its complaint?
 

Sure, they have every right, and I don't blame them for coming to the opinion they hold. They can't be expected to view the opera dispassionately. The ADL, like any other interest group, can be faulted when it puts immediate self-interest over principle. And as we know, standing for principle is ultimately in one's self-interest.

Which of their own principles are they violating? Their interpretation is that their action supports their mission. The Met is the one that backed down from their own judgement about the work and, after making a fuss about not getting involved in politics, did exactly that by pulling the HD of the work and agreeing to add a statement by the Klinghoffer daughters in the program, which was done when the opera was presented by the Long Beach Opera earlier this year.

The ADL acted according to its mission. They couldn't force the Met to act. That was the Met's decision.

Edited to add: the Met cites ADL and the Klinghoffer family's objections in its press release, but thanks to a heads up from Richard A. Walter of the opera(-l) universe, it does not mention the Zionist Organization of America, which according to its own website, calls the opera anti-Semitic and contacted the Kansas-headquartered AMC movie chain which airs Met in HD broadcasts. As a result, they claim that AMC contacted the Met to voice opposition to broadcasting the opera in HD and told ZOA that they had done so.



#20 kfw

kfw

    Sapphire Circle

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,313 posts

Posted 19 June 2014 - 03:54 AM

Why should it have to say that the opera is not anti-Semitic?
 
Because
“it welcome[d] the Metropolitan Opera’s decision to cancel a global simulcast of the controversial John Adams opera, “The Death of Klinghoffer,” in response to concerns that the opera’s biased portrayal of events surrounding the hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro could foment anti-Semitism globally or legitimize terrorism.”

 

If Foxman agrees that the opera isn’t anti-Semitic, why is he siding with people who do? As I wrote before, as a group that stands for the rights of an often viciously mischaracterized minority, it should stand by other parties that are falsely accused, or at least not side with its accusers. It’s inconsistent to demand fairness but not give it in return.
 
The Klinghoffer family's main concern regards the Opera's juxtaposition of the plight of the Palestinian people with the coldblooded murder of an innocent disabled American Jew. They feel the Opera attempts to take this brutal act of terrorism and rationalize, legitimize, and explain it.

 

In other words, they feel it legitimizes terrorism – they feel it’s anti-Semitic.
 
Which of their own principles are they violating? Their interpretation is that their action supports their mission. 

 

I’m referring to what’s right because it's consistent and charitable, not to their own specific principles, although I could argue that, to borrow a word, legitimizing the equation of Adams’ self-professed attempt to humanize the terrorists with anti-Semitism is inconsistent with Combatting Hate. To equate attempting to understand the terrorists with a taking “sympathetic view” of them - i.e. of their actions - is to give in to the sort of emotions that prevent reasoned discourse, that hinder peace.


#21 Helene

Helene

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,248 posts

Posted 19 June 2014 - 10:47 AM

So all terrorism is anti-Semitic? You have no way of knowing whether the Klinghoffer daughters would have felt the same way if their father had been killed by white supremacists or the Shining Path and Adams had given these groups similar treatment in his opera. You can puts words into the mouths of the Klinghoffer daughters, who've been consistent since 1991 that their two objections are: the work is historically inaccurate and it creates a false dichotomy.  Since not all Jews equate anti-Israeli with anti-Semitism, and many feel there are far more layers and subtleties at the heart of the matter, it is hardly a given that the Klinghoffer daughters believe that the opera is anti-Semitic, especially since they have had every chance to say so, from the heat of the moment until now, and they haven't.  They feel their father is being used for political gain through the opera. The ADL agrees and believes the opera will stoke anti-Semitism that is on the rise.

 

As shown by the ZOA statement, the ADL's stand on asking the Met to cancel the HD broadcast intersects with those who do feel it is an anti-Semitic work and have said so.  That hardly means that two groups that come to the same conclusion come to it for the same reasons or that agreement means they support each others' reasons.  I'm sure at some point Jesse Helms and Bernie Sanders voted for the same bill, even if from different houses.

 

The ADL is an advocacy group that takes people's money to fulfill a specific mission; your definition of "right" and "charitable" is no more relevant than mine as far as their judgement goes on how to fulfill their mission.  As far as resolving any conflicts in the Middle East, their stance is consistent with the Klinghoffer daughters' objections to the work, which is that there can't be any basis for resolution when the underlying assumptions are false, which is also what many Palestinians and Israel Arabs believe, and which has made resolution impossible.

 

The Met was presented with an request by the ADL, to act upon on not.  The ZOA also pressed the same issue by contacting AMC theaters, which is head-quartered in a state where a recent synagogue attack by a self-proclaimed anti-Semite is still raw, and Met board members.



#22 kfw

kfw

    Sapphire Circle

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,313 posts

Posted 19 June 2014 - 12:09 PM

So all terrorism is anti-Semitic? You have no way of knowing whether the Klinghoffer daughters would have felt the same way if their father had been killed by white supremacists or the Shining Path and Adams had given these groups similar treatment in his opera. You can puts words into the mouths of the Klinghoffer daughters, who've been consistent since 1991 that their two objections are: the work is historically inaccurate and it creates a false dichotomy.  Since not all Jews equate anti-Israeli with anti-Semitism, and many feel there are far more layers and subtleties at the heart of the matter, it is hardly a given that the Klinghoffer daughters believe that the opera is anti-Semitic, especially since they have had every chance to say so, from the heat of the moment until now, and they haven't.  They feel their father is being used for political gain through the opera. The ADL agrees and believes the opera will stoke anti-Semitism that is on the rise.

 
"Rational(izing), legitim(izing), explain(ing)" terror against a Jew . . . that's anti-Semitic in my view (what other motive would someone have?), so characterizing a work of art as such seems tantamount to calling it anti-Semitic. But I dont want to put words in anyones mouth, and if the Klinghoffers dont use the term, OK, my mistake. Again, my issue is not with the Klinghoffers. * However, having written that, I find this statement by the Klinghoffers here: We are outraged at the exploitation of our parents and the cold-blooded murder of our father as the centrepiece of a production that appears to us to be anti-Semitic.
 
Whether or not they would have objected to Adams attempt to humanize other terrorists, had these killed their father, is neither here nor there in my opinion. Given the tragedy theyve suffered, and given the emotions the opera must provoke, they cant be blamed for their opposition. They deserve and have my sympathy. But I think its very unfortunate that cooler heads didnt prevail at the ADL. I respect the Klinghoffers feelings, but I think the larger issue is encouraging vs. discouraging free expression, and the even larger issue is whether or not to stand with ones friends when theyre wrong, or stand with the people theyre wrong about. The ADL says the charge of anti-Semitism is wrong, but stands with the people who use the charge to stop the broadcast.
 

As shown by the ZOA statement, the ADL's stand on asking the Met to cancel the HD broadcast intersects with those who do feel it is an anti-Semitic work and have said so.  That hardly means that two groups that come to the same conclusion come to it for the same reasons or that agreement means they support each others' reasons. 

 
The ADLs stated reason for opposing the broadcast is not that the work is anti-Semitic, but that it might incite anti-Semitism, a prejudice which like all tenaciously held prejudices depends upon a refusal to empathize and understand to humanize, which is what Adams said he wanted to do in the opera. I think humanizing vs. polarizing is the choice here, sympathizing with people as people while still condemning their acts, or saying that its wrong to sympathize with someone whos wronged you.
 

The ADL is an advocacy group that takes people's money to fulfill a specific mission; your definition of "right" and "charitable" is no more relevant than mine as far as their judgement on how to fulfill their mission. 

 
Well, I believe that whats right is right and whats wrong is wrong whether you or I or the Met or the ADL and its members think it is or not. So I think the question here is whether or not standing up for people falsely accused is right. I think it is, and so I think the ADLs stance is sadly ironic. Also, while they've noted the Klinghoffers' view, to my knowledge they have not said they think the opera falsifies history, and given that theyve taken a stand against the works transmission, it would be strange if they thought it did and didnt say so. Foxman says he hasnt even seen it.

#23 Helene

Helene

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,248 posts

Posted 19 June 2014 - 01:59 PM

So all terrorism is anti-Semitic?

"Rational(izing), legitim(izing), explain(ing)" terror against a Jew . . . that's anti-Semitic in my view (what other motive would someone have?), so characterizing a work of art as such seems tantamount to calling it anti-Semitic.

Anti-Israel or anti-Israeli policy is not the definition of anti-Semitism. Many organizations and individuals believe it is the same -- there is at least one Hassidic sect, the Satmarers, who believe that a man-made State of Israel is blasphemy, while other Jews call them anti-Semites -- and many do not and view the Israeli/Palestinian dispute as a separate, but sometimes related political dispute. That is very clear from the Fink article to which you linked, and that is only on the subject of the opera.

To believe that the work is anti-Semitic is well within the mainstream, although hardly exclusively so. (Again, see Fink.) I don't see how it would have hurt the ADL to call it anti-Semitic, but they didn't in an environment where it isn't an automatic assumption.
 

But I dont want to put words in anyones mouth, and if the Klinghoffers dont use the term, OK, my mistake. Again, my issue is not with the Klinghoffers. * However, having written that, I find this statement by the Klinghoffers here: We are outraged at the exploitation of our parents and the cold-blooded murder of our father as the centrepiece of a production that appears to us to be anti-Semitic.

I stand corrected: I had searched for the daughters' early reactions to the opera and couldn't find such a quote made at the time of the premiere.

However, that doesn't change the *fact* that the ADL's and the daughters' stated interest intersects with believing that the opera "dangerous juxtaposition of the plight of the Palestinian people with the coldblooded, terrorist murder of an innocent disabled American Jew," and that the ADL believed that what it considers a fallacy would be a motivation to incite anti-Semitic actions. The rationale is not simply that the daughters are upset, and we must stand by their emotional, yet wrong reactions -- a quite sexist view, in my opinion -- but that the false content will incite violence.
 

But I think its very unfortunate that cooler heads didnt prevail at the ADL. I respect the Klinghoffers feelings, but I think the larger issue is encouraging vs. discouraging free expression, and the even larger issue is whether or not to stand with ones friends when theyre wrong, or stand with the people theyre wrong about. The ADL says the charge of anti-Semitism is wrong, but stands with the people who use the charge to stop the broadcast.

That suggests that you think that the ADL (or any organization) must agree 100% with every position held by anyone on whose behalf they advocate; I think that is wrong. The ADL has made it clear on which point they agree, and they argue that this will incite anti-Semitic action.
 

The ADLs stated reason for opposing the broadcast is not that the work is anti-Semitic, but that it might incite anti-Semitism, a prejudice which like all tenaciously held prejudices depends upon a refusal to empathize and understand to humanize, which is what Adams said he wanted to do in the opera. I think humanizing vs. polarizing is the choice here, sympathizing with people as people while still condemning their acts, or saying that its wrong to sympathize with someone whos wronged you.

You've skipped the step in which they state that they believe because the opera depicts a false equivalent of a rights' movement with the murder of a single Jewish individual, that there will be people who will be swayed that argument to attack Jews. They are pointing to a specific point of view in a specific work to say that they feel it is dangerous.
 

Also, while they've noted the Klinghoffers' view, to my knowledge they have not said they think the opera falsifies history, and given that theyve taken a stand against the works transmission, it would be strange if they thought it did and didnt say so. Foxman says he hasnt even seen it.

When they quote the daughters' statement about what they believe the opera falsifies, they're supporting that statement, and they go further to say that they believe it will incite anti-Semitic actions, which is the basis of their complaint to the Met. There are plenty of anti-Semitic works that the ADL might decry, but they don't believe all of them will end in terror, and if they acted every time a Jew's feelings were hurt, they'd be hogtied. The Metropolitan Opera is a tiny stage in the big picture for the organization. Even if the news was reported widely, the chances of it staying in the news are very low. The arts are not that important in America. They would get far more press coverage and mileage out of many other incidents.

The daughters have been vigilantly representing their own views for over two decades; their views were part of the program of the recent Long Beach Opera performances of the work.

#24 kfw

kfw

    Sapphire Circle

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,313 posts

Posted 19 June 2014 - 04:41 PM

Helene, on 19 Jun 2014 - 2:47 PM, said:

Anti-Israel or anti-Israeli policy is not the definition of anti-Semitism.

 

 
No it’s not, but I don’t understand what Israel itself has to do with whether the K’s see the work as anti-Semitic. The daughters decried what they saw as"Rational(izing), legitim(izing), explain(ing)" terror against a Jew.”
 
I don't see how it would have hurt the ADL to call it anti-Semitic, but they didn't in an environment where it isn't an automatic assumption.

 

If the ADL had called the opera anti-Semitic, I wouldn’t have criticized them. What I criticized them for was taking the side of (the Klinghoffers), and giving in to (the people making, or effectively making, threats) people making a charge they acknowledge is false.
 
The rationale is not simply that the daughters are upset, and we must stand by their emotional, yet wrong reactions -- a quite sexist view, in my opinion -- but that the false content will incite violence.

 

Sexist? I don’t see anyone saying or implying “they’re just emotional because they’re women.” Men feel grief and grief-based anger as well. As to your larger point, yes, I understand that, and should have and meant to address it earlier. If threats of violence based on false charges are allowed to dictate behavior, where are we? For one thing, we’re encouraging more unwillingness to allow that another view, while wrong, has a right to be heard, and more Limbaugh-like demonization and caricaturization of other people’s views, more of the campus shutdowns of free speech that a number of commencement speakers took students to task for this spring, etc. I think the trend there is more misunderstanding begetting, sooner or later, more violence.

But I think its very unfortunate that cooler heads didnt prevail at the ADL. I respect the Klinghoffers feelings, but I think the larger issue is encouraging vs. discouraging free expression, and the even larger issue is whether or not to stand with ones friends when theyre wrong, or stand with the people theyre wrong about. The ADL says the charge of anti-Semitism is wrong, but stands with the people who use the charge to stop the broadcast.
That suggests that you think that the ADL (or any organization) must agree 100% with every position held by anyone on whose behalf they advocate; I think that is wrong.

 

So do I. I don’t think they should never support people whose views they don’t completely agree with. I think they were wrong to in this case, for reasons I’ve tried to explain.
 
The ADLs stated reason for opposing the broadcast is not that the work is anti-Semitic, but that it might incite anti-Semitism, a prejudice which like all tenaciously held prejudices depends upon a refusal to empathize and understand to humanize, which is what Adams said he wanted to do in the opera. I think humanizing vs. polarizing is the choice here, sympathizing with people as people while still condemning their acts, or saying that its wrong to sympathize with someone whos wronged you.
You've skipped the step in which they state that they believe because the opera depicts a false equivalent of a rights' movement with the murder of a single Jewish individual, that there will be people who will be swayed that argument to attack Jews. They are pointing to a specific point of view in a specific work to say that they feel it is dangerous.

 

Far better then, in my opinion, to say “the opera is inaccurate and here’s why . . .” Although they don’t mean to do so, it’s almost as if they’re legitimizing political violence, saying in effect, “if people believe the opera’s version of things, it’s no wonder they’d resort to violence.” As a rights organization they were uniquely positioned to say to a large audience with an authority that would give it real rhetorical force – all the more so because they could say it while also stating their grievance with Adams and Goodman – that everyone’s exercising free speech is in everyone’s interest. They were in a position to lower the temperature of the debate, to promote real debate, leading to empathy and real understanding.
 
When they quote the daughters' statement about what they believe the opera falsifies, they're supporting that statement, and they go further to say that they believe it will incite anti-Semitic actions, which is the basis of their complaint to the Met. There are plenty of anti-Semitic works that the ADL might decry, but they don't believe all of them will end in terror, and if they acted every time a Jew's feelings were hurt, they'd be hogtied. The Metropolitan Opera is a tiny stage in the big picture for the organization. Even if the news was reported widely, the chances of it staying in the news are very low. The arts are not that important in America. They would get far more press coverage and mileage out of many other incidents.

 

Point taken about the daughters’ statement. As you can tell from above, I don’t think they have a tiny stage on this issue though. It may not make 30-minute-minus commercials network news broadcasts, but because it touches on hot button issues I imagine political people took note, and standing on principle when it was costly, as it probably would have been, would have garnered more publicity.
 
The daughters have been vigilantly representing their own views for over two decades; their views were part of the program of the recent Long Beach Opera performances of the work.

 

I think that’s great.
 
We've had a good debate. Unless I really have something new to say, I think I've said enough.


#25 Helene

Helene

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,248 posts

Posted 19 June 2014 - 09:05 PM

Helene, on 19 Jun 2014 - 2:47 PM, said:
Anti-Israel or anti-Israeli policy is not the definition of anti-Semitism.

 
No it’s not, but I don’t understand what Israel itself has to do with whether the K’s see the work as anti-Semitic. The daughters decried what they saw as"Rational(izing), legitim(izing), explain(ing)" terror against a Jew.”

The reason for terrorizing Klinghoffer was because of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It wasn't a random act of anti-Semitism.
 

If the ADL had called the opera anti-Semitic, I wouldn’t have criticized them. What I criticized them for was taking the side of (the Klinghoffers), and giving in to (the people making, or effectively making, threats) people making a charge they acknowledge is false.

Obviously we disagree whether supporting a specific claim of falsification and not the claim of anti-Semitism means the ADL supports the claim of anti-Semitism and every other claim made by the Klinghoffer daughters.
 
 

If threats of violence based on false charges are allowed to dictate behavior, where are we?

I understood you meant "false charges" were charges by the daughters that the piece is anti-Semitic, something with which many in the article you cited agreed. If you do mean this, then you misunderstand the ADL's position, which is that what they agree (with the daughters) is that the great misrepresentation in the opera, the false moral equivalency between Palestinian rights and the murder of a Jew, is what will incite acts of anti-Semitism. The ADL is not saying that because the work is anti-Semitic, it will cause acts of violence against Jews. There are plenty of anti-Semitic works that they don't feel will do so (or have the same danger of doing so), because they don't create a false moral equivalency, and they must pick their battles, not having unlimited time and resources. They have also not protested movies, plays, and books that express "the other side's point of view" in much more critical ways, but ways they don't think would incite violence.

#26 kfw

kfw

    Sapphire Circle

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,313 posts

Posted 20 June 2014 - 03:59 AM

I understood you meant "false charges" were charges by the daughters that the piece is anti-Semitic, something with which many in the article you cited agreed. If you do mean this, then you misunderstand the ADL's position, which is that what they agree (with the daughters) is that the great misrepresentation in the opera, the false moral equivalency between Palestinian rights and the murder of a Jew, is what will incite acts of anti-Semitism. The ADL is not saying that because the work is anti-Semitic, it will cause acts of violence against Jews. There are plenty of anti-Semitic works that they don't feel will do so (or have the same danger of doing so), because they don't create a false moral equivalency, and they must pick their battles, not having unlimited time and resources. They have also not protested movies, plays, and books that express "the other side's point of view" in much more critical ways, but ways they don't think would incite violence.
 
No I wasn’t referring to the daughters, who are not threatening violence. “False charges” was poor wording, sorry – “I just meant the anti-Semitic/pro-Palestinian state/what-have-you passions the opera will supposedly stir, leading to violence. Noting the upcoming HD broadcast of Die Meistersinger,  Anthony Tommasini asks
 
Should the Met cancel the “Meistersinger” simulcast if pressure comes from groups that combat intolerance?

 

I don’t think we're combating intolerance by giving in to threats. Tommasini also writes that
 
This “Klinghoffer” production could have been an invaluable teaching moment for the Met and its audiences. Mr. Gelb could have assembled Middle East historians, religious leaders and the “Klinghoffer” creative team to have a public dialogue, culminating in the simulcast.

 

I think that’s one way to handle intolerance.


#27 dirac

dirac

    Diamonds Circle

  • Board Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,300 posts

Posted 21 June 2014 - 10:41 AM

 Gelb's very public betrayal of the artists whose work he is presenting is worse than craven. He's not going to be able to shake this off for awhile. 

 

 

“I’m just afraid that most people will have a sort of Wikipedia opinion about this opera,” he said. “They’ll say, ‘Oh, that’s the opera that’s been accused of anti-Semitism,’ and leave it at that. And that’s really very sad — it’s very hard when something’s been stained with an accusation like that, it’s almost impossible to wash it out.”

 

 

 

Obviously the ADL cannot  say that the opera is anti-Semitic, since as kfw notes above, Foxman hasn't got around to seeing it. Nonetheless, the damage is done. 

 

As a rights organization they were uniquely positioned to say to a large audience with an authority that would give it real rhetorical force – all the more so because they could say it while also stating their grievance with Adams and Goodman – that everyone’s exercising free speech is in everyone’s interest. They were in a position to lower the temperature of the debate, to promote real debate, leading to empathy and real understanding.

 

 

This, too



#28 Helene

Helene

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,248 posts

Posted 21 June 2014 - 01:14 PM

Foxman isn't the only person at the ADL.  When has the ADL been hesitant to call something anti-Semitic?  The ADL's position is to constantly weigh content against potential violence.  In this case, they have a specific issue with content that they think could result in violence.  The Met could have respectfully disagreed or could have said that freedom of speech (content) or artistic freedom is a higher principle.

 

This doesn't sound like a Gelb move, but he has bosses.  It's possible this is an issue that is setting him up for ouster, but freedom of speech is a North American right:  artists who work in Europe know that there are all kinds of laws that suppress speech, particularly what is deemed to be anti-Semitic speech or hate speech.  Many of the major artists are more likely to be upset at the pay cuts Gelb is proposing, particularly the artists who aren't as interested in regie theater and are happy that the Met tends to bypass its right to do with opera what it pleases.

 

There might not even be a Met season by then -- the last performance of the opera is scheduled for 15 November -- let alone an HD broadcast.



#29 sandik

sandik

    Rubies Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,575 posts

Posted 21 June 2014 - 03:07 PM

 

There might not even be a Met season by then -- the last performance of the opera is scheduled for 15 November -- let alone an HD broadcast.

 

A tangent, I know, but I'm still asking -- do we really think that the company will fold, or is this politics?



#30 dirac

dirac

    Diamonds Circle

  • Board Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,300 posts

Posted 21 June 2014 - 03:15 PM

I think that if the leader of such an organization is going to speak publicly in this fashion about a work of art he has an obligation to see it. As the opera has already been seen on television and exposed to millions of viewers,in addition to being available for viewing in other formats, he surely has had ample opportunity. And Foxman and the ADL weren't just pushing for the opera not to be broadcast in cinemas or radio; they wanted it canceled altogether. In any case, Adams' point holds.

 

Gelb isn't going to lose his job for this, it's just a black mark on his record. If he wasn't prepared to stand by his programming, he ought never to have chosen the opera in the first place. And given that this isn't the first time the opera has aroused controversy, he has little excuse for having been caught flatfooted by the backlash. Worst of both worlds, etc.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Help support Ballet Alert! and Ballet Talk for Dancers year round by using this search box for your amazon.com purchases (adblockers may block display):