# Should Adams' The Death of Klinghoffer be more controversial than what it already is?



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

I still don't see why Adams' The Death of Klinghoffer is controversial. It's hardly Anti-Semetic and on repeated viewings the sympathetic views for ALL characters is part of Adams' humanism and not as political as people make it out to be.

Honestly, the Met protests and the cancellation of the Met HD broadcast for this opera makes me dismayed about the utter conservative views that classical audiences have.  It's all about the money and political correctness trail .

Any thoughts on this issue regarding this marvelous opera?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

A good deal of the controversy seems to be over certain lines in the libretto given to the terrorists which express their anti-Semitic viewpoints. Some, Taruskin in particular, have argued that the music makes them into the heroes or at least into victims, but I don't agree. The other point of controversy is the choruses at the beginning that seemingly draw parallels between the current situation in the Middle East and the Holocaust.

The one point that I do feel is important in this controversy is that the work takes a real person, not even dead for ten years when the work was written, and turns his last moments into spectacle. No matter how respectful the intent may have been (and I'm sure it was), there is an element of insensitivity in it that bothers me.

As for the work itself, it has some great music in it, and some less than great (I think the terrorist music that's supposed to depict the horror of their taking over seems more absurd and silly than effective). I prefer Nixon in China myself, and I think the libretto is better and more dramatically organized than the oddly detached and static action of Klinghoffer. I haven't actually heard Doctor Atomic in its entirety, though.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> A good deal of the controversy seems to be over certain lines in the libretto given to the terrorists which express their anti-Semitic viewpoints. Some, Taruskin in particular, have argued that the music makes them into the heroes or at least into victims, but I don't agree. The other point of controversy is the choruses at the beginning that seemingly draw parallels between the current situation in the Middle East and the Holocaust.
> 
> The one point that I do feel is important in this controversy is that the work takes a real person, not even dead for ten years when the work was written, and turns his last moments into spectacle. No matter how respectful the intent may have been (and I'm sure it was), there is an element of insensitivity in it that bothers me.
> 
> As for the work itself, it has some great music in it, and some less than great (I think the terrorist music that's supposed to depict the horror of their taking over seems more absurd and silly than effective). I prefer Nixon in China myself, and I think the libretto is better and more dramatically organized than the oddly detached and static action of Klinghoffer. I haven't actually heard Doctor Atomic in its entirety, though.


Many of the Jews in the Opera were also depicted as rich and materialistic (I mean, these were Tourists on a Cruise Ship, not denizens of a soup kitchen), but that also rubbed many of us Hebrews who tend to be overly sensitive to such stereotyping the wrong way.


----------



## Guest (Nov 22, 2014)

What I've read all boils down to: Adams didn't depict the terrorists properly as 100% inhuman, pure evil entities; therefore, he must hate Jews.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Triplets said:


> Many of the Jews in the Opera were also depicted as rich and materialistic (I mean, these were Tourists on a Cruise Ship, not denizens of a soup kitchen), but that also rubbed many of us Hebrews who tend to be overly sensitive to such stereotyping the wrong way.


The question is whether it was a stereotype or historical depiction. This is the same issue that David Simon faced with the depiction of Maurice Levy in The Wire. Of this Simon says:

"Why did we make this guy Jewish? Because when I was covering the drug trade for 13 years for the Sun, most of the major drug lawyers were Jewish. Some of them are now disbarred and others are not but came pretty close. Anyone who is anyone in law enforcement in Baltimore knows the three or four guys Maury Levy is patterned on.

If I have people from every other tribe in Baltimore portrayed negatively, everyone is maligned in some way, how can I not do that to the Jewish guy? How can I pull that punch? At that point I'm just being hypocritical. Here are good people from my own tribe who say how can you do that, and my answer is how can I not?"

This is a Jewish television creator who was not scared to depict the hypocrisy of his own race. Adams, if he were Jewish, would not have his opera condemned as badly as he has right now.

Supposedly, this song lyrics written by Alice Goodman went like this:

"John Adams:Chorus Of Exiled Palestinians

My father's house was razed
In nineteen forty-eight
When the Israelis passed
Over our street.

The house was built of stone
With a courtyard inside
Where, on a hot day, one
Could sit in shade

Under a tree, and have
A glass of something cool.
Coolness rose like a wave
From our pure well.

No one was turned away.
The doorstep had worn down:
I see in my mind's eye
A crescent moon.

Of that house, not a wall
In which a bird might nest
Was left to stand. Israel
Laid all to waste.

Though we have paid to drink
Our water, and our wood
Is sold to us, we thank
The only God.

Let the supplanter look
Upon his work. Our faith
Will take the stones he broke
And break his teeth."

Hardly Anti-Semitic in my judgment. Unless I am reading English incorrectly. I still think it's because the Palestinians get a voice in this whole debacle that people tend to read this as anti-Semitic. It's like The Daily Show depicting FOX News and it getting a bad rap.

Interestingly enough, Alice Goodman who wrote the libretto was raised as a Reform Jewish lady.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

albertfallickwang said:


> View attachment 56575
> 
> 
> I still don't see why Adams' The Death of Klinghoffer is controversial. It's hardly Anti-Semetic and on repeated viewings the sympathetic views for ALL characters is part of Adams' humanism and not as political as people make it out to be.


You see, if it was anti- *any other nation or ethnicity except the Israelis*, there would be hardly any controversy at all, even if it was really anti- and contained heavy criticism or hatred. If it was anti-American some opera companies would have loved it. It seems Adams, just like Wagner in his time, had the misfortune to cross the wrong people. But then, if he did not want the controversy, he should have known better.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

SiegendesLicht said:


> You see, if it was anti- *any other nation or ethnicity except the Israelis*, there would be hardly any controversy at all, even if it was really anti- and contained heavy criticism or hatred. If it was anti-American some opera companies would have loved it. It seems Adams, just like Wagner in his time, had the misfortune to cross the wrong people. But then, if he did not want the controversy, he should have known better.


Wagner was explicitly Anti Semitic. He wrote books arguing that Jews should be banned from Music (and many other things).
There is a world of difference between his views and that of John Adams.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

The entire revolutionary "thing" across the street from the Met was a sad and inappropriate thing over a lot of nothing. I guess a few would-be political types decided to try to become heroes in their particular group and stirred up a big fuss. It was childish and self-serving. Sadly, it probably did their reputations more harm than it did good.

I was there opening night and IMO this definitely was not an anti-Semitic piece. What it was was the depicting of both factions from their points of view -- nothing more, nothing less. 
In this volatile issue, no one is going to change another's feelings and come over to the other side. These are passionate and deep felt convictions each side has -- both with their pluses and minuses.
The opera was a pleasant surprise for me. I never expected to like Adams' music from past experience but I actually found it much more to my liking than previously. The plaintive singing of Mrs. Klinghoffer was especially beautifully done and very touching. 

Originally, I was planning to only see the HD but that questionable decision on Gelb's part to deep six it forced me to spend the big bucks, which I never would normally have done for this particular opera, but something bigger took over because I refused to allow anyone to tell me what I should and should not see and what I should and should not think about their particular impression of the work, especially being that they never even saw it themselves.
Censorship and I do not work well together.

Bottom Line: It was a lot of brouhaha that probably sold more tickets for the Met than it previously ever would have, so in that sense some good was gained out of an overblown situation.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

SiegendesLicht said:


> You see, if it was anti- *any other nation or ethnicity except the Israelis*, there would be hardly any controversy at all, even if it was really anti- and contained heavy criticism or hatred. If it was anti-American some opera companies would have loved it. It seems Adams, just like Wagner in his time, had the misfortune to cross the wrong people. But then, if he did not want the controversy, he should have known better.


Actually, I think that it was more Alice Goodman being caught off guard than John Adams about the whole thing: http://www.theguardian.com/music/2012/jan/29/alice-goodman-death-klinghoffer-interview

The point is that everyone is human and ought to be respected as such. For a brave opera to portray everyone as part of the overall fabric of history and its mechanism. Definitely Adams is pretty presaging on the controversy that plaguing today with 9/11 and even today's ISIS crisis.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

albertfallickwang said:


> View attachment 56575
> 
> 
> I still don't see why Adams' The Death of Klinghoffer is controversial. *It's hardly Anti-Semetic *and on repeated viewings the sympathetic views for ALL characters is part of Adams' humanism and not as political as people make it out to be.
> ...


Hardly anti-semitic? Yeah. Like someone is "hardly" a murderer because he only killed one person.

You are either anti-semitic or you are not. There are no baby steps here. "Hardly" to me is completely distasteful word when placed in front of "anti-semitic".


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

hpowders said:


> "Hardly" to me is completely distasteful word when placed in front of "anti-semitic".


You are from the US, as I see. Is that word as distasteful when placed in front of "anti-American"?


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

SiegendesLicht said:


> You are from the US, as I see. Is that word as distasteful when placed in front of "anti-American"?


Sure. You can not be hardly anti anything. Once you place your little toe in the waters of hate, you are COMPLETELY in!!!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SiegendesLicht said:


> You see, if it was anti- *any other nation or ethnicity except the Israelis*, there would be hardly any controversy at all, even if it was really anti- and contained heavy criticism or hatred. If it was anti-American some opera companies would have loved it. It seems Adams, just like Wagner in his time, had the misfortune to cross the wrong people. But then, if he did not want the controversy, he should have known better.


I must take exception here. Anti-Americanism is not in any respect equivalent to antisemitism. Not even anti-black racism is historically equivalent, though it comes closer, and you can be sure that any opera that smelled of _that_ would run into trouble - deservedly so. If Jews are the wrong people to cross, it's because they have been crossed by "Christendom" for two millennia, and in ways that could ruin our sleep to examine closely.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Sure. You can not be hardly anti anything. Once you place your little toe in the waters of hate, you are COMPLETELY in!!!


Hate has different gradations. Life isn't black and white. You can hate something a little or a lot.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

There is a high percentile Jewish 'bloc' in and around Manhattan, and that bloc is a matter of consideration in both real politics and, I suppose, the politics of the Met's subscribers and patrons re: which operas (due to their libretti's contents) will be put on without too much of a protesting backlash... just a fact.

For me, _Klinghoffer_ is the dullest of his 'minimalist' works, getting near the same level of musical interest as I find Philip Glass -- i.e. fairly unlistenable.

From (also) my viewpoint, there is _nothing at all controversial_ about _The Death of Klinghoffer,_ libretto or music.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Hardly anti-semitic? Yeah. Like someone is "hardly" a murderer because he only killed one person.
> 
> You are either anti-semitic or you are not. There are no baby steps here. "Hardly" to me is completely distasteful word when placed in front of "anti-semitic".


Mr Powders:
You see the problem with your statement is that you didn't separate the writing from the personal opinions of characters.
If you want to call the characters themselves, (the terrorists in this case), anti-Semitic, you certainly would be very correct. They expressed their reasons for their hatred through the words put into their mouths by the librettist -- but that simply does NOT make her an anti-Semite simply because she expressed through them their true feelings, and it certainly does not make the entire opera itself an anti-Semitic work. Not even in the very least. (Are you sure you actually SAW it? I wonder.).


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

In fact, I am wondering whether the same controversy about The Death of Klinghoffer is very similar to what charges are levied against The Merchant of Venice in Shakespeare. To separate the characters' dialogue from the composer/librettist's personal beliefs is pretty important. For me, that would be the point of art. To be brave and exploratory.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

albertfallickwang said:


> Interestingly enough, Alice Goodman who wrote the libretto was raised as a Reform Jewish lady.


Good point........


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

nina foresti said:


> Mr Powders:
> You see the problem with your statement is that you didn't separate the writing from the personal opinions of characters.
> If you want to call the characters themselves, (the terrorists in this case), anti-Semitic, you certainly would be very correct. They expressed their reasons for their hatred through the words put into their mouths by the librettist -- but that simply does NOT make her an anti-Semite simply because she expressed through them their true feelings, and it certainly does not make the entire opera itself an anti-Semitic work. Not even in the very least. (Are you sure you actually SAW it? I wonder.).


No. I haven't seen it, but I would like to see it it so I can judge for myself.

I don't like folks telling me what I can and cannot see.

And I thank you for your elaboration, Ms. Foresti.

P.S.-I was writing about anti-semitism in general. One cannot be "a little" antisemitic.

I am a Jew living in a gentile area. My wife, a non-Jew, had a friend who was anti-semitic and was also friendly and comfortable with me, and one day expressed some vile things about Jews to my wife.
My wife said "you know my husband is Jewish".
She replied, "hpowders isn't like them"!

Sorry! Anti-semitism doesn't work that way. You either hate all Jews or you hate none. There are no degrees of anti-semitism.

Of course if I confronted this woman, I would say "so you hate Jesus. Jesus was a Jew. He never knew the label "christian". That came much, much later".

There are no itsy, bitsy teeny tiny degrees of hatred, custom fit to make the hater comfortable.

You are anti-semitic, fine, but don't call yourself a Christian and pretend you worship a "non-Jew".


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

hpowders said:


> No. I haven't seen it, but I would like to see it it so I can judge for myself.
> 
> I don't like folks telling me what I can and cannot see.
> 
> And I thank you for your elaboration, Ms. Foresti.


Indeed and Peter Gelb lost a good opportunity to educate people about Adams' work through the HD Met Broadcasts. That would have helped to know that the work is inherently good.


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2014)

What is even more funny to me is that, prior to the existence of the modern state of Israel, there was no Palestinian state. It is a construct that was created later as a cudgel with which to beat Israel over the head. It was a chunk of land that has been controlled by one group or another for quite some time, and back into antiquity.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Piwikiwi said:


> Quite a few Muslims as well.


Yes. So not all Israelis are Jews.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

DrMike said:


> What is even more funny to me is that, prior to the existence of the modern state of Israel, there was no Palestinian state. It is a construct that was created later as a cudgel with which to beat Israel over the head. It was a chunk of land that has been controlled by one group or another for quite some time, and back into antiquity.


If I recall correctly didn't the British create Palestine in 1948?


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

DrMike said:


> What is even more funny to me is that, prior to the existence of the modern state of Israel, there was no Palestinian state. It is a construct that was created later as a cudgel with which to beat Israel over the head. It was a chunk of land that has been controlled by one group or another for quite some time, and back into antiquity.


I'm sorry but your view is really simplistic. You are right that there wasn't a Palestinian state but that also applies to almost all the other states in the Middle East. This conflict is incredibly complicated and such simplifications are utterly useless if you want to make sense of this conflict.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

hpowders said:


> Yes. So not all Israelis are Jews.


That's also the problem isn't it? How do you create a Jewish state if there is a risk that Jewish people won't be the majority at some point in the future? Without violating human rights that is.

I personally haven't got a clue how to solve this problem.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

SiegendesLicht said:


> And that is one of the reasons I've turned my back on Christianity. The Beatitudes are a perfect recipe for letting any- and everybody trample all over you. "Blessed are the poor in spirit..." - I'd rather be rich in spirit, possess an understanding of culture, art, and other spiritual things and take joy and pride in them.


You have to understand that he was speaking in a dialogue that was proper thousands of years ago... and account for the vast misunderstands and tweaking in translations over the years. He's speaking about the personal ego, which it is said to be the foundation of all ignorance.

I'm not religious, but I like a good wise-man every once in a while.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Piwikiwi said:


> That's also the problem isn't it? How do you create a Jewish state if there is a risk that Jewish people won't be the majority at some point in the future? Without violating human rights that is.
> 
> I personally haven't got a clue how to solve this problem.


You limit immigration to people who are either practicing Judaics religiously or who are Christans, atheists, whatever, BUT are able to show proof of Jewish ancestry and thus are Jews ethnically. Isn't that how it is done in Israel?


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

SiegendesLicht said:


> You limit immigration to people who are either practicing Judaics religiously or who are Christans, atheists, whatever, BUT are able to show proof of Jewish ancestry and thus are Jews ethnically. Isn't that how it is done in Israel?


The problem Israel as a Jewish state faces is the high birthrate of their Muslim minority in comparison to the birthrate of the Jewish majority. I do not think that limiting immigration of non-Jewish people or promoting the immigration of Jewish people will solve this.


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2014)

At any rate, it is all a controversial topic, and I suspect Adams was hoping for controversy with his play. Controversy generates press, after all, and in art, there's no such thing as bad publicity. And thus he goes from someone little known outside the ever-dwindling community of classical music enthusiasts, to suddenly being a news story.

If you're going to ride the bull, don't be shocked when you get the horns.


----------



## xpangaeax (Oct 1, 2013)

From what I've gathered, Klinghoffer isn't anti-semitic in the way that The Merchant of Venice is, it seems to be more anti Zion / anti Israel. It's a piece examining a current state of affairs in the world, one that people are reluctant to talk about (because as previously mentioned, many Zionists will equate criticism of Israeli policies as being anti-Semitic) or that people are clueless about (as previously mentioned with comments like "Palestine didn't exist before!") Do the "terrorists" in the Opera hold anti-Jew beliefs? Absolutely. Is it the same as dumb bigots like Shakespeare, Wagner, or the most notorious Hitler? No. I think nationalism is wrong, and holding all Jews accountable for the actions of Israel is a short sighted approach for the characters in the Opera to take, but it's a far cry from the paranoia historically held by Europeans, many of whom probably never even met a Jew (they were exiled from England before Shakespeare's time, for example.)


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Vesuvius said:


> You have to understand that he was speaking in a dialogue that was proper thousands of years ago... and account for the vast misunderstands and tweaking in translations over the years. He's speaking about the personal ego, which it is said to be the foundation of all ignorance.
> 
> I'm not religious, but I like a good wise-man every once in a while.


I understand about the dialogue. You like a good wise-man, but you surely would not reject all other wisdom out there, Eastern, Western and all other knowledge so that you might become "poor in spirit" and ready to follow the teachings of a single book.

Ah, whatever. I am gone to listen to some Beethoven and read Nietzsche's _Gay Science_


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2014)

SiegendesLicht said:


> I understand about the dialogue. You like a good wise-man, but you surely would not reject all other wisdom out there, Eastern, Western and all other knowledge so that you might become "poor in spirit" and ready to follow the teachings of a single book.
> 
> Ah, whatever. I am gone to listen to some Beethoven and read Nietzsche's _Gay Science_


My philosophy is to seek out anything virtuous, lovely, of good report, and praiseworthy wherever it can be found. One of the reasons I enjoy classical music.


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2014)

I think one of the biggest controversies with Klinghoffer is that it tries to "explain" the motivations of all sides, and in this sense seeks to put a human face to the side of the terrorists. Why? Whatever their motivations, they chose to murder. Why should they then be immortalized in this manner? Do we write operas of Osama bin Laden? Charles Manson? Jeffrey Dahmer? Adolf Hitler?

Murderers should not be legitimized in this way. Furthermore, I think it does more of a disservice to Palestinians. By attaching the Palestinian story to the terrorists who murdered Klinghoffer, it sets up the notion that this narrative has the ultimate effect of driving Palestinians to be terrorists, which is utterly rubbish.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> To me it's incredible that people chuck all this criticism at Israel when the nations around them aren't exactly liberal democracies with glowing records on human rights. I mean, rather live in Israel or Syria at the moment?


Oh, all governments are equally culpable.

There's certainly no government like no government.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DrMike said:


> I think one of the biggest controversies with Klinghoffer is that it tries to "explain" the motivations of all sides, and in this sense seeks to put a human face to the side of the terrorists. Why? Whatever their motivations, they chose to murder. Why should they then be immortalized in this manner? Do we write operas of Osama bin Laden? Charles Manson? Jeffrey Dahmer? Adolf Hitler?
> 
> Murderers should not be legitimized in this way. Furthermore, I think it does more of a disservice to Palestinians. By attaching the Palestinian story to the terrorists who murdered Klinghoffer, it sets up the notion that this narrative has the ultimate effect of driving Palestinians to be terrorists, which is utterly rubbish.


Thankfully, no operas have as yet have been written on genocidal General Joshua's adventures in crime, terror, and repression.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DrMike said:


> Murderers should not be legitimized in this way. Furthermore, I think it does more of a disservice to Palestinians. By attaching the Palestinian story to the terrorists who murdered Klinghoffer, it sets up the notion that this narrative has the ultimate effect of driving Palestinians to be terrorists, which is utterly rubbish.


Just a note that may touch on the hijackers and broader Palestinian opinion: The hijackers were members of the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), whose leaders were included in the PLO's executive committee. The PLF finally admitted responsibility for the hijacking and the death of Klinghoffer a decade afterward, in 1996, and in 1997 the PLO reached a financial settlement with the Klinghoffer family.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

SiegendesLicht said:


> I understand about the dialogue. You like a good wise-man, but you surely would not reject all other wisdom out there, Eastern, Western and all other knowledge so that you might become "poor in spirit" and ready to follow the teachings of a single book.
> 
> Ah, whatever. I am gone to listen to some Beethoven and read Nietzsche's _Gay Science_


I don't follow anything. I just appreciate wisdom when I see it. Doesn't matter where it comes from.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I want to see it.


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2014)

There are very few operas I want to see in person. And Mozart's Magic Flute is the only one that I would be excited to see. So this one doesn't even register. How much of this opera is merited, and how much is just hype by using a very controversial topic? 

Either way, this rates high on the "meh" meter for me.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

DrMike said:


> There are very few operas I want to see in person. And Mozart's Magic Flute is the only one that I would be excited to see. So this one doesn't even register. How much of this opera is merited, and how much is just hype by using a very controversial topic?
> 
> Either way, this rates high on the "meh" meter for me.


I am an obsessive opera watcher. I seen every opera put on by the Utah Opera over the past few years. For example, can't wait to see The Rake's Progress at the end of this season.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

hpowders said:


> I want to see it.


Then watch this; it's a brilliant film:


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

What a menacing cover. Now I really gotta check it out on DVD .


----------

