THE DEATH OF KLINGHOFFER, THE OPERA, - AN ABOMINATION OR ART?

THE DEATH OF KLINGHOFFER, THE OPERA, -  AN ABOMINATION OR ART?

The prestigious Metropolitan Opera House has created somewhat of a furore with its latest operatic production,The Death of Klinghoffer. The criticism has been that the opera represents overt anti-Semitism and glorifies terrorism. There were protests against the production lead by many key New York politicians including the present Mayor De Blasio, Mayor Guilianni, Governor Cuomo, Governor Patterson and New York Congressmen. The staging of this drama once again raises the age old debate relating to politics and art. On the one end of the spectrum are those who believe as long it is art or purports to be art anything goes. Conversely there are those who maintain that art cannot be divorced either from the artist or from what the art claims to represent. 

ART AND POLITICS 

This discussion relates to the performing arts as the visual arts have unashamedly been used throughout the centuries to depict political and religious events and ideologies. It is also accepted that political connotations have been associated with the performing arts from time immemorial. As one is on the topic of anti-Semitism the most prescient example that springs to mind is the operatic genius Richard Wagner. During the World War 11 virtually every allied country took the decision to ban any production by that German composer. While it can be certainly argued that Wagner’s operatic content did not contain any overt anti semitism he was an avowed jew hater and even more significantly, Hitler was so obsessed with his music that it in effect became the anthem of Nazi fascism.  Hitler made no pretense as to the political significance of music. To hammer home his point the Nazis outlawed any non arian performer. Only three composers made the grade in the Third Reich - Beethoven, Bruckner and of course Wagner.

By and large there is an acceptance that the arts and politics are inextricably bound either by the behavior of the artists and composers or by the content of their musings. Even the Beatles were the subject of the church and certain governments’ wrath when they proclaimed that they were more popular than Jesus. All their music was “verboten” in certain countries such as South Africa following upon their provocative claim. 

THE CINEMA AS AN ART FORM AND POLITICS

Nowhere is the concept that art is value loaded than in the visual performing cinematic arts. Jay H. Ell has always believed that the USA’s greatest contribution to civilization and the arts in the twentieth Century will be its perfection of the movie as an art form. Here there has been no pretence that both the content of the art and the artist him or herself has a political persona. If one looks at the productions, and here examples are so many that personal bias comes into the selection, there are legion. Stanley Kramer’s Judgement at Nuremberg emphasized the abrogation of moral and legal responsibility of the German Judiciary in legitimizing and carrying out the racial laws of the Nazi regime. Spielberg’s Schindler’s List showed that the ordinary citizen had choice as to whether or not he collaborated with the Nazis and his heroic efforts to save Jewish lives.

It is interesting to note that Stanley Kramer as a producer and a director was responsible for some of the most politically and socially evocative movies of his time. In addition to Judgement at Nuremberg, there was Inherit the Wind, which examined the issues of evolution versus creationism, Guess Who Came to Dinner focussed on the topic of racial prejudice way ahead of its time and High Noon delved into the dilemma of doing what was right even at the risk of one’s own life. The latter was interpreted as Kauffman rebelling and standing up against the fascism of US Senator Joe McCarthy who in his crusade against communism conducted a vicious smear campaign ruining the lives of many by his guilt by association.

So there is little doubt that the performing arts, since time immemorial, has been considered to be value laden and could never escape criticism by claiming that it just represented art for art’s sake. Jay H.Ell will not look at the other many examples of the impact cinematography has on the values and mores of society, leaving that perhaps for another occasion, rather he will concentrate on the content and the values that The Death of Klingoffer evokes. 

THE NARRATIVE OF THE DEATH OF KLINGHOFFER

All this is by way of introduction in relation to the criticism that the Metropolitan Opera House has faced as a result of their decision to feature the opera,The Death of Klinghoffer, in prime time in the number one operatic venue in the world. Klinghoffer, written in 1991 would have slipped into oblivion, as that was where it was, had the New York Metropolitan Opera House not resuscitated it thirteen years after its unremarkable and forgotten debut.

Briefly, the story, as narrated in the Playbill of the Metropolitan production, is an account of the highjacking, by terrorists of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, of an American Holiday Cruise Ship the Achille Lauro. The narrative of the opera accepts that the hijackers do not want to make peace, are frustrated that their ransom demands are not being met and are antagonistic to Jews and Americans. It further details that the handicapped Klinghoffer, who is wheelchair bound, professes that he normally avoids trouble but he denounces the hijackers. The hijackers subsequently shoot him and throw his body overboard while the widow, Mrs. Klinghoffer, on learning of these events is inconsolable.

The consensus impression of the production is that it glorifies terrorism, is empathetic to the PLO cause and therefore this terrorism and murderous act. So at question here is not the artist per se but the content of his art.

THE METROPOLITAN INTERPRETATION OF KLINGHOFFER

The  Metropolitan and the Klinghoffer Director, Tom Morris, defended the production on a number of levels. Firstly, they maintained that one should see the production before judging it. By offering this explanation they were implicitly arguing the case of the art for art sake, that as has been contended above has not stood the test of time. To further support the art for art sake exchange the Metropolitan explained that they have championed the work of the composer John Adams as one of America’s greatest living composers. They continued along this line by maintaining that the Met is committed to presenting the finest works across the operatic repertory, as well as increasing the accessibility and relevance of the art form. The Metropolitan continue, “Since this opera dramatizes a horrific act of violence, the Met acknowledges that some members of its audience may disagree with the decision to present this work and the Met would like to assure its audiences that it is not endorsing any political views expressed in the libretto.” 

In the latter disclosure they are admitting that there are political views in the opera which they do not endorse.By way of justification they offer, again and again, the “art for arts sake” justification.

In addition in the above explanation the Met distorted the criticism they they were facing. They were being accused of glorifying terrorism and perpetuating anti semitism. They conceded that their accusers have validity in their gripe by conceding, “Please know that after an outpouring of concern that its, (The Metropolitan's), plans to transmit John Adams's opera The Death of Klinghoffer, might be used to fan global anti-Semitism, the Metropolitan Opera announced the decision to cancel its Live in HD transmission, scheduled for November 15, 2014.” Apparently it is acceptable to “fan” New York anti - Semitism but not in the rest of America and  the world.

Morrison in an interview further straddled the art for art sake mantra by stating, “It is fascinating that conversation ranges so quickly from detailed discussion of the production into the political context which is so fraught and which is still an ongoing global struggle.” Again the latter implied a justification of terrorism and murder as a solution to the “ongoing global struggle”.

It is fair to argue that the Metropolitan Opera House have not convincingly answered their enraged denouncers. One the one hand they offer the discredited “art for art sake” rationale and on the other they acknowledge that the opera has political views, that they do not endorse, and that the production could engender global anti - Semitism.

CONCLUSION

One wonders what the Metropolitan Opera establishment were really thinking. As the foremost proponent of the performing art of opera in the world they have to know what a politics 101 student is aware of - that art is not neutral. To give a platform for this blatant anti -Semitism and glorification of the murder of innocents in is at kindest naive and at worst tendentious and fascist. The highjacking of the Achille Lauro has significance in the terrorist world in that it marked one of their first indiscriminate acts of global terror on non combatants of other countries. Also to produce this in New York where there are still holocaust survivors and the greatest concentration of jews outside Israel is insensitive beyond belief. 

One has to come to the inescapable conclusion that those that gave the go ahead for this production, which incidentally several of the critics have not given the same high artistic bouquets that the Met have accorded to it, had to be aware of the outrage it would evoke and couldn’t have cared less. They were then supposedly taken aback by the response to it and withdrew from broadcasting it to the world lest it “fan global antisemitism”. Their response was to little to late. Whether they like it or not they have made a dangerous political statement. It is common cause that the lunatic fringe are recruited to Muslim fundamentalism by any propaganda that gives them reassurance that they have a cause. Being empathetic to those who, in cold blood, in “the ongoing global struggle”, murder a jewish cripple in a wheelchair who is on a holiday cruise is worse than irresponsible. 

One is also mindful, as the opera’s program indicates, that the Met receives a large amount of public money. Also there are those that donates literarily millions for the arts. If they support this will they support, for example, a future work by John Adams, who the Met “champion as one of the greatest living composers”, in an opera depicting an ISIS beheading where it reflects the “ongoing global struggle”. Or if Adams penned a work where animals were tortured would they then argue about the merits of the art and artist and claim that they do not agree with its content!

It might be a good idea, now that Adams has entered the political arena for him to follow up with a sequel to Klinghoffer entitled The Death of Reheynah Jibarri who was hanged in Iran this month. According to Amnesty International she killed her employer, a member of the Iran’s Intelligence and Security Department. She argued that she did this in self defense as he attempted to sexually assault her. Besides being tortured and held in solitary confinement, Amnesty  International reports that the investigation into the incident was flawed and the trial unfair. This is one of a spate of executions that have occurred since the so called moderate Rhohani has been elected President. 

Jay H. Ell will never ever be able to attend an opera in that iconic theater in New York with its breathtaking chandelier, its sweeping stair cases, its glass walls that makes it seem to spill out into the plaza outside thereby connecting the interior to the fountain resulting in a flowing panoramic vista and the incredible Chagall murals that bedeck its walls, without being reminded of the fact that as a new global antisemitic wave was sweeping across the world, the leading Art Center in America, by their own admission, fanned the flames. Shame on them. One can take  some solace at the almost unanimous condemnation of their action and hope that the matter does not rest there. 

Finally, what surprises Jay H. Ell most is the fact that the donors to opera are not up in arms or are they just worried that they won’t be invited to the company party?