Jewish Museum
SAM HOPP
What do you all think of the Holocaust exhibit at the Jewish Museum?
Is it really an affront or a new way to get us to think about the
banality of the evils of the Holocaust?
If the former, then how's it worse than Hogan's Heroes or Mel Brooks?
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
Sheldon Ackerman
>
>What do you all think of the Holocaust exhibit at the Jewish Museum?
>Is it really an affront or a new way to get us to think about the
>banality of the evils of the Holocaust?
>
>If the former, then how's it worse than Hogan's Heroes or Mel Brooks?
>
I haven't seen it. Have you?
As for Hogan's Heros...odds are if my mother would have watched it would not
remind her at all baout the Holocaust. What is the connection in your mind
between the Holocause and hogans heros or mel b???
Jonathan J. Baker
Debbie just read a couple of books on Hogan's Heroes. For one thing, at
least three of the actors were Jewish, and were glad to participate in
something that made the Narzis look like buffoons. Werner Klemperer was
particularly adamant about ensuring that his character (Col. Klink) be
a consummate incompetent buffoon.
Robert Clary (Lebeau) and John Banner (Sgt. Schultz) were also Jewish,
Banner only marginally. Clary was a Holocaust survivor himself. See,
e.g., <http://www.tv-now.com/malik/clary.htm>.
--
Jonathan Baker | Knock knock. Who's there? Mischa. Mischa who?
jjb...@panix.com | Mishenichnas Adar marbim besimcha.
David S. Maddison
[..]
: If the former, then how's it worse than Hogan's Heroes or Mel Brooks?
The one rule followed by the producers of Hogan's Heroes was that the
Nazis were never to be portrayed in a favourable light, which after all,
was a historically correct representation.
David Maddison
Susan Cohen
"Jonathan J. Baker" wrote:
> In <g> acke...@amanda.dorsai.org (Sheldon Ackerman) writes:
> >In article <pgpmoose.2002...@scjm.nj.org>, SAM HOPP wrote:
>
> >>What do you all think of the Holocaust exhibit at the Jewish Museum?
> >>Is it really an affront or a new way to get us to think about the
> >>banality of the evils of the Holocaust?
>
> >>If the former, then how's it worse than Hogan's Heroes or Mel Brooks?
>
> >I haven't seen it. Have you?
> >As for Hogan's Heros...odds are if my mother would have watched it would not
> >remind her at all baout the Holocaust. What is the connection in your mind
> >between the Holocause and hogans heros or mel b???
>
> Debbie just read a couple of books on Hogan's Heroes. For one thing, at
> least three of the actors were Jewish, and were glad to participate in
> something that made the Narzis look like buffoons. Werner Klemperer was
> particularly adamant about ensuring that his character (Col. Klink) be
> a consummate incompetent buffoon.
I heard him say personally (okay, over the TV, I was never fortunate
enough to meet the man) that if the Nazis ever won, he would quit the show.
But the show itself was never about the Holocaust.
I only remember one episode where they even mentioned anything *racist*,
and that was when Sgt Kinchloe (an African American) was set to box their
"Battling Bruno" and won - and Gen Burkhalter said *outright* that a black
man couldnot be allwoed to beat their champion. I was surprised that they
were that blatant on a sitcom in those days.
Abe Kohen
"SAM HOPP" <sam...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:pgpmoose.2002...@scjm.nj.org...
> Hello,
>
> What do you all think of the Holocaust exhibit at the Jewish Museum?
> Is it really an affront or a new way to get us to think about the
> banality of the evils of the Holocaust?
The Jewish Museum, possibly facing fiscal bankruptcy, has opted for moral
bankruptcy.
> If the former, then how's it worse than Hogan's Heroes or Mel Brooks?
Hogan's Heroes is at best a farce, and at worst offensive. The Jewish Museum
exhibit is at best and at worst offensive.
Abe
David S. Maddison
[..]
: But the show itself was never about the Holocaust.
: I only remember one episode where they even mentioned anything *racist*,
: and that was when Sgt Kinchloe (an African American) was set to box their
: "Battling Bruno" and won - and Gen Burkhalter said *outright* that a black
: man couldnot be allwoed to beat their champion. I was surprised that they
: were that blatant on a sitcom in those days.
[..]
I recall one episode where it was implicitly acknowledged that a black man
would be out of place in Nazi Germany. The episode was where Hogan and
some of his men had to secretly leave the camp on a mission and the black
POW (Sgt Kinchloe?) was given a job where he wouldn't be visible to
civilians among whom the others had to mix.
David Maddison
Yitzchak Goodman
Mel Brooks and Hogan's Heroes. It seems that people are responding
about Hogan's Heroes, but nobody is responding concerning
Mel Brooks. I'm not familiar with the recent remake of
"The Producers"; I only know the film with Zero Mostel
ande Gene Wilder. I haven't seen a movie for years,
but I must confess that I always thought this was a
great, creative movie. I imagine that some are offended
by it since you can't deny that on some level it exploits
the agony of the holocaust. Certainly it does it in a very
self-aware and complex way by telling a story about characters
who are themselves trying to exploit the holocaust and whose scheme
misfires badly, but still in the end, we the audience are
laughing at this funny, Broadway musical version of Hitler.
So why is this acceptable? Or is it?
Yitz
Susan Cohen
Yitzchak Goodman wrote:
> The original post that begins this thread mentions
> Mel Brooks and Hogan's Heroes. It seems that people are responding
> about Hogan's Heroes, but nobody is responding concerning
> Mel Brooks. I'm not familiar with the recent remake of
> "The Producers"; I only know the film with Zero Mostel
> ande Gene Wilder. I haven't seen a movie for years,
> but I must confess that I always thought this was a
> great, creative movie. I imagine that some are offended
> by it since you can't deny that on some level it exploits
> the agony of the holocaust.
Only in that it shows people with *nefarious purposes*
exploiting the Holocaust.
IOW, the two protagonists are *crooks* - they want to
*lose* money so they do the most disgusting play they
can think of - a "fun" musical about Hitler.
> Certainly it does it in a very
> self-aware and complex way by telling a story about characters
> who are themselves trying to exploit the holocaust and whose scheme
> misfires badly, but still in the end, we the audience are
> laughing at this funny, Broadway musical version of Hitler.
> So why is this acceptable? Or is it?
I don't see us laughing at the idea of Hitler, nor do I think
the muscial is funny in the enjoyable sense - more like
funny in the *ridiculous* sense - the idea of Hitler as anything
other than a monster should be "funny".
Susan
>
>
> Yitz
Eliyahu
"Yitzchak Goodman" <yitz...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:c338b5c0.02031...@posting.google.com...
best way he can fight against hitler and nazis is to make fun of them,
portraying them in a way that makes them look ridiculous. That's the one
thing that totalitarian governments can't deal with... ridicule and mocking.
--
Eliyahu Rooff
www.geocities.com/Area51/Underworld/8096/HomePage.htm
RSG Rollcall http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/rooffe.htm
Dan Kimmel
The movie is one of my all time favorites, and I've even used it in film
classes and I'm seeing the show shortly. I would say that the movie has only
the most indirect connection to the Holocaust unless any movie that vilifies
or mocks the Nazis is automatically assumed to specifically addressing the
Shoah.
Now I've read interviews with Brooks who said his motivation was to do his
part to make Hitler and the Nazis so ridiculous that no one would ever take
their ideas seriously ever again, so rather than being exploitation, I think
it's more of a direct (albeit very funny) political/historical statement.
BAC...@vms.huji.ac.il
>From: acke...@amanda.dorsai.org (Sheldon Ackerman)
>Subject:Re: Jewish Museum
>Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 01:28:26 +0000 (UTC)
>Message-ID:<slrna9ago7....@amanda.dorsai.org>
>In article <pgpmoose.2002...@scjm.nj.org>, SAM HOPP wrote:
>
>>
>>What do you all think of the Holocaust exhibit at the Jewish Museum?
>>Is it really an affront or a new way to get us to think about the
>>banality of the evils of the Holocaust?
>>
>>If the former, then how's it worse than Hogan's Heroes or Mel Brooks?
>>
>
>I haven't seen it. Have you?
>As for Hogan's Heros...odds are if my mother would have watched it would not
>remind her at all baout the Holocaust. What is the connection in your mind
>between the Holocause and hogans heros or mel b???
The Mel Brooks 1968 movie THE PRODUCERS.
Josh (who got his MBA from the Max Bialystock School of Business
Administration :-)
BAC...@vms.huji.ac.il
>From: "Abe Kohen" <abek...@yahoo.com>
>Subject:Re: Jewish Museum
>Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 04:26:50 +0000 (UTC)
>Message-ID:<a73qcn$hm15o$1...@ID-102750.news.dfncis.de>
>
>"SAM HOPP" <sam...@juno.com> wrote in message
>news:pgpmoose.2002...@scjm.nj.org...
>> Hello,
>>
>> What do you all think of the Holocaust exhibit at the Jewish Museum?
>> Is it really an affront or a new way to get us to think about the
>> banality of the evils of the Holocaust?
>
>The Jewish Museum, possibly facing fiscal bankruptcy, has opted for moral
>bankruptcy.
The "Jewish" Museum [tm] is affiliated with the Conservative Jewish
Theological Seminary.
I think that says it all.
Josh
>
>
>> If the former, then how's it worse than Hogan's Heroes or Mel Brooks?
>
Jonathan J. Baker
Brooks goes beyond this. In History of the World Part I, he
does this shtick about the Inquisition as a musical. "Auto-da-fe?
What's an auto-da-fe? It's what you oughtn't to do but you do
anyway!", showing the Judaizer (in long black coat and beard) being
tortured, singing madly all the while.
The Producers was his first film. Having gotten away with Springtime
for Hilter, he could then do the same to the Inquisition.
Jonathan J. Baker
>From: "Abe Kohen" <abek...@yahoo.com>
>>>
>>> What do you all think of the Holocaust exhibit at the Jewish Museum?
>>> Is it really an affront or a new way to get us to think about the
>>> banality of the evils of the Holocaust?
>>
>>The Jewish Museum, possibly facing fiscal bankruptcy, has opted for moral
>>bankruptcy.
There is no such thing as bad publicity. The Brooklyn Museum taught
that lesson well.
>The "Jewish" Museum [tm] is affiliated with the Conservative Jewish
>Theological Seminary.
The Jewish Museum has a prominent picture of my wife learning at Drisha.
>I think that says it all.
No, it's more that they have a split personality as a museum of art run
by Jews vs. a museum of Judaism for Jews and for others.
Henry Goodman
"SAM HOPP" <sam...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:pgpmoose.2002...@scjm.nj.org...
> Hello,
>
> What do you all think of the Holocaust exhibit at the Jewish Museum?
> Is it really an affront or a new way to get us to think about the
> banality of the evils of the Holocaust?
>
Which Jewish Museum do you mean?
--
Henry Goodman
henry....@virgin.net
18/3/02 1:15p.m. GMT
Jeremy M. Posner
Henry Goodman <henry....@virgin.net> wrote:
> "SAM HOPP" <sam...@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:pgpmoose.2002...@scjm.nj.org...
> > Hello,
> >
> > What do you all think of the Holocaust exhibit at the Jewish Museum?
> > Is it really an affront or a new way to get us to think about the
> > banality of the evils of the Holocaust?
> >
>
> Which Jewish Museum do you mean?
The discussion is about the Jewish Museum in New York, at 92nd Street &
5th Avenue, in the former Warburg mansion.
Yesterday, they opened a new exhibition called "Mirroring Evil," which
combines Nazi and contemporary imagery. For several weeks now, there
has been a great deal of very public debate about whether or not the
Jewish Museum should be showing such an exhibit, whether or not items
that incorporate Nazi imagery can be classified as art, and other
related arguments. There was a sizable crowd protesting outside the
museum during the day yesterday.
I haven't seen the exhibition, so I can't comment on whether or not it
crosses the line from social commentary to offensiveness. As I've said
before in this forum, as an artist myself, I will not condone
censorship of art, no matter how offensive I find the artwork itself,
as it's the beginning of a journey down a very slippery slope that
leads to things far worse than the ideas expressed by the artwork.
While the arguments about whether or not the exhibit should happen have
been almost entirely within the Jewish community here in NYC, the
protests were prominent stories in the local newscasts last night.
This, in turn, brought up the horrors of the Shoah to a larger audience
than would ever see the exhibit. While the means to this end are not
optimal, it is always important to raise awareness of the Shoah in the
secular community.
Just my 2 cents. If I get around to seeing the exhibit, I'll be sure to
report it here...
-JMP
Susan Cohen
"Jonathan J. Baker" wrote:
> In < yitz...@lycos.com (Yitzchak Goodman) writes:
>
> >The original post that begins this thread mentions
> >Mel Brooks and Hogan's Heroes. It seems that people are responding
> >about Hogan's Heroes, but nobody is responding concerning
> >Mel Brooks. I'm not familiar with the recent remake of
> >"The Producers"; I only know the film with Zero Mostel
> >ande Gene Wilder. I haven't seen a movie for years,
> >but I must confess that I always thought this was a
> >great, creative movie. I imagine that some are offended
> >by it since you can't deny that on some level it exploits
> >the agony of the holocaust. Certainly it does it in a very
> >self-aware and complex way by telling a story about characters
> >who are themselves trying to exploit the holocaust and whose scheme
> >misfires badly, but still in the end, we the audience are
> >laughing at this funny, Broadway musical version of Hitler.
> >So why is this acceptable? Or is it?
>
> Brooks goes beyond this. In History of the World Part I, he
> does this shtick about the Inquisition as a musical. "Auto-da-fe?
> What's an auto-da-fe? It's what you oughtn't to do but you do
> anyway!", showing the Judaizer (in long black coat and beard) being
> tortured, singing madly all the while.
I happened to have liked that sequence even better as an
anti-bigotry message.
Even in the part you quote above, it is totally condemnatory.
He states outright in his lyrics that the Inquisition was set up to
get the Jews - and, at the end, when all attempts have failed, &
they bring out the Secret Weapon (pretty nuns) for the big water
number, what happens? All the nuns become Jewish!!
A *major* Thumb-on-Nose/Tongue-Sticking-Out.
Susan
Eliyahu
<BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL> wrote in message
news:pgpmoose.2002...@scjm.nj.org...
> X-News: hujicc soc.culture.jewish.moderated:76716
>
> >From: "Abe Kohen" <abek...@yahoo.com>
> >Subject:Re: Jewish Museum
> >Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 04:26:50 +0000 (UTC)
> >Message-ID:<a73qcn$hm15o$1...@ID-102750.news.dfncis.de>
>
> >
> >"SAM HOPP" <sam...@juno.com> wrote in message
> >news:pgpmoose.2002...@scjm.nj.org...
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> What do you all think of the Holocaust exhibit at the Jewish Museum?
> >> Is it really an affront or a new way to get us to think about the
> >> banality of the evils of the Holocaust?
> >
> >The Jewish Museum, possibly facing fiscal bankruptcy, has opted for moral
> >bankruptcy.
>
>
> The "Jewish" Museum [tm] is affiliated with the Conservative Jewish
> Theological Seminary.
>
>
> I think that says it all.
>
> Josh
>
with the presumption that anything affiliated with JTS is automatically bad;
an unfair and unreasonable assumption at best.
Eliyahu
Dan Kimmel
"Eliyahu" <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u9c2s4a...@corp.supernews.com...
Josh is just jealous because one of the world's greatest depositories of
Judaica -- studied by Jewish scholars from all streams
-- is at the JTS library in New York. :)
Henry Goodman
"Jeremy M. Posner" <jpo...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:180320020915372059%jpo...@panix.com...
Thanks, Jeremy. These newscasts didn't reach me in London so I had no idea
what people are talking about. There are probably Jewish museums in most
major cities that have a Jewish community, so the phrase 'The Jewish Museum'
doesn't mean much.
--
Henry Goodman
henry....@virgin.net
SAM HOPP
yesterday, a child of a Holocaust survivor complained about the exhibit,
including the six busts of Mengele on pedestals. He likened that to
showing Osam ben Laden at Ground Zero.
The TV then showed one of the busts. To me, that seemingly-ordinary bust
conveyed the frightening experience that those who had to pass him at
Auschwitz must have felt. So at least on that one exhibit, I disagree
with the opponent on MSNBC.
Sam
________________________________________________________________
Omri
http://observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=5590
--
Omri Schwarz --- ocs...@mit.edu ('h' before war)
Timeless wisdom of biomedical engineering: "Noise is principally
due to the presence of the patient." -- R.F. Farr
Jay Lapidus
<pgpmoose.2002...@scjm.nj.org>,
BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL wrote:
>X-News: hujicc soc.culture.jewish.moderated:76716
>
>>From: "Abe Kohen" <abek...@yahoo.com>
>>Subject:Re: Jewish Museum
>>Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 04:26:50 +0000 (UTC)
>>Message-ID:<a73qcn$hm15o$1...@ID-102750.news.dfncis.de>
>
>>
>>"SAM HOPP" <sam...@juno.com> wrote in message
>>news:pgpmoose.2002...@scjm.nj.org...
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> What do you all think of the Holocaust exhibit at the Jewish Museum?
>>> Is it really an affront or a new way to get us to think about the
>>> banality of the evils of the Holocaust?
>>
>>The Jewish Museum, possibly facing fiscal bankruptcy, has opted for moral
>>bankruptcy.
>
>
>The "Jewish" Museum [tm] is affiliated with the Conservative Jewish
>Theological Seminary.
>
>
>I think that says it all.
Sam,
You are apparently new here. Josh's reply is typical of his level of
discourse: ad hominems without substance, but that's what's tolerated
here.
Apparently, casting aspersions on an institution by putting quotations
around "Jewish" is also considered acceptable.
It would be helpful, if the writer be at all serious, to explain what
the affiliation has to do with the exhibit itself.
Jay S. Lapidus http://jlapidus.tripod.com
"I don't care what denomination you belong to,
as long as you're ashamed of it."
- Rabbi Yitz Greenberg
Yitzchak Goodman
> "Yitzchak Goodman" <yitz...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> news:c338b5c0.02031...@posting.google.com...
> > The original post that begins this thread mentions
> > Mel Brooks and Hogan's Heroes. It seems that people are responding
> > about Hogan's Heroes, but nobody is responding concerning
> > Mel Brooks. I'm not familiar with the recent remake of
> > "The Producers"; I only know the film with Zero Mostel
> > ande Gene Wilder. I haven't seen a movie for years,
> > but I must confess that I always thought this was a
> > great, creative movie. I imagine that some are offended
> > by it since you can't deny that on some level it exploits
> > the agony of the holocaust. Certainly it does it in a very
> > self-aware and complex way by telling a story about characters
> > who are themselves trying to exploit the holocaust and whose scheme
> > misfires badly, but still in the end, we the audience are
> > laughing at this funny, Broadway musical version of Hitler.
> > So why is this acceptable? Or is it?
>
> The movie is one of my all time favorites, and I've even used it in film
> classes and I'm seeing the show shortly. I would say that the movie has only
> the most indirect connection to the Holocaust unless any movie that vilifies
> or mocks the Nazis is automatically assumed to specifically addressing the
> Shoah.
There is no mention of the holocaust at all in the movie, that's true.
But the holocaust is still, I think, definitely what is behind the
whole sense that the Nazis are beyond laughter. That is why the
members of the audience in the movie are depicted as sitting
there with their mouths hanging open in horror.
> Now I've read interviews with Brooks who said his motivation was to do his
> part to make Hitler and the Nazis so ridiculous that no one would ever take
> their ideas seriously ever again, so rather than being exploitation, I think
> it's more of a direct (albeit very funny) political/historical statement.
But the method is interesting. Think about the song The Feuhrer's Face,
for instance; so much about the Nazis is held up for derision: people
have to heap fake adulation on the Feuhrer, people can't leave Nazi Germany,
this effeminate voice proclaims that Nazis are "super-duper supermen."
In The Producers, however, the joke is relentlessly and singlemindedly
focused on how inappropriate and incongruous Hiter and Naziism are
in a certain context. Perhaps Brooks meant the scenes with Dick Shawn
as Hitler to attack certain aspects of Naziism. There is the whole
scene with Goebbels and the joke that the morning propaganda message
is that "We're winning!" but what is really funny is two sterotypical
hippies strutting around slapping palms together who are supposed to
be Hitler and Goebbels and Dick Shawn playing his swagger-stick like
a bass and so forth, playing blues chords on the piano and singing
"I'm gonna crush Poland." So why does the art exhibit described in
the new stories just seem to be pretentious and insensitive?
Yitz
Micha Berger
: Yesterday, they opened a new exhibition called "Mirroring Evil," which
: combines Nazi and contemporary imagery....
I never understood the debate.
Isn't the point of the exibit to show the artists as evil for trivializing
the holocaust, not to support their viewpoint? Or at least to open that
dialogue?
-mi
--
Micha Berger The mind is a wonderful organ
mi...@aishdas.org for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905
James Kahn
>On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 14:14:16 +0000 (UTC), Jeremy M. Posner <jpo...@panix.com> wrote:
>: Yesterday, they opened a new exhibition called "Mirroring Evil," which
>: combines Nazi and contemporary imagery....
>I never understood the debate.
>Isn't the point of the exibit to show the artists as evil for trivializing
>the holocaust, not to support their viewpoint? Or at least to open that
>dialogue?
That's the first I've heard that idea as being "the point." (Of course it
may be the effect.) As far as I've heard, these artists are taken seriously,
and are actively involved in the exhibit themselves--which would be unlikely
if the point of the exhibit was as you suggest. For example, if you go
to the website (www.jewishmuseum.org), it describes the exhibit as:
"a selection of recent works by thirteen internationally recognized artists,
all of whom make new and daring use of imagery taken from the Nazi era.
Employing the challenging language of conceptual art, the artists bring
the highly charged imagery of the Third Reich out of the past and into the
present, leading us to question how images shape our perception of evil
today."
--
Jim
New York, NY
(Please remove "nospam." to get my e-mail address)
http://www.panix.com/~kahn
Micha Berger
:>Isn't the point of the exibit to show the artists as evil for trivializing
:>the holocaust, not to support their viewpoint? Or at least to open that
:>dialogue?
: For example, if you go
: to the website (www.jewishmuseum.org), it describes the exhibit as:
: "a selection of recent works ...
: Employing the challenging language of conceptual art, the artists bring
: the highly charged imagery of the Third Reich out of the past and into the
: present, leading us to question how images shape our perception of evil
: today."
I see this last sentence to be akin to mine.
The point is to evaluate the art and its message about evil and how we
see evil. They didn't set up the exhibit to endorse its message.
Yitzchak Goodman
>
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 21:01:39 +0000 (UTC), James Kahn <ka...@nospam.panix.com> wrote:
> :>Isn't the point of the exibit to show the artists as evil for trivializing
> :>the holocaust, not to support their viewpoint? Or at least to open that
> :>dialogue?
>
> : For example, if you go
> : to the website (www.jewishmuseum.org), it describes the exhibit as:
>
> : "a selection of recent works ...
> : Employing the challenging language of conceptual art, the artists bring
> : the highly charged imagery of the Third Reich out of the past and into the
> : present, leading us to question how images shape our perception of evil
> : today."
>
> I see this last sentence to be akin to mine.
>
> The point is to evaluate the art and its message about evil and how we
> see evil. They didn't set up the exhibit to endorse its message.
No, the "questioning of images" is (supposedly) the process
that the audience undergoes by experiencing the art. There is no
sense in the museum statement of purpose that we are supposed to
evaluate the art in a sense in which its legitimacy is in question.
Yitz
Garry
The producers (the show and the movie are the same on this point)
doesn't mention the holocaust. It makes fun of hitler and germany's
role in world war 2, but is careful IMO to avoid involving the
holocaust. In this way it's similar to Hitler on Ice in History of
the World. Brooks does make fun of Jewish suffering in that latter
film, but it's the inquisition, not the holocaust, which I guess he
considers less sensitive. It's not his best work anyway.
In his remake of To Be or Not to Be, the holocaust is a little more
present -- but when it is (as when the gay dresser is arrested, or the
Jewish woman has to walk through a theater of german soldiers) the
movie is moving, tasteful, and not meant to be funny -- that''s part
of the impact of the movie, the screwball comedy intercut with just a
handful of frightening scenes, as if to say "yes, we can joke about it
now, but..."
_________
A Haggadah that feeds the hungry! A carefully translated, revised, and gender-neutral Haggadah with the structure and feeling of the traditional one. Handsomely printed. The entire purchase price goes to charity.
www.haggadah.freeservers.com
Dan Kimmel
"Yitzchak Goodman" <yitz...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:c338b5c0.02031...@posting.google.com...
> "Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:<Dokl8.15999$tP2.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
his
> > part to make Hitler and the Nazis so ridiculous that no one would ever
take
> > their ideas seriously ever again, so rather than being exploitation, I
think
> > it's more of a direct (albeit very funny) political/historical
statement.
>
> But the method is interesting. Think about the song The Feuhrer's Face,
> for instance; so much about the Nazis is held up for derision: people
> have to heap fake adulation on the Feuhrer, people can't leave Nazi
Germany,
> this effeminate voice proclaims that Nazis are "super-duper supermen."
> In The Producers, however, the joke is relentlessly and singlemindedly
> focused on how inappropriate and incongruous Hiter and Naziism are
> in a certain context. Perhaps Brooks meant the scenes with Dick Shawn
> as Hitler to attack certain aspects of Naziism. There is the whole
> scene with Goebbels and the joke that the morning propaganda message
> is that "We're winning!" but what is really funny is two sterotypical
> hippies strutting around slapping palms together who are supposed to
> be Hitler and Goebbels and Dick Shawn playing his swagger-stick like
> a bass and so forth, playing blues chords on the piano and singing
> "I'm gonna crush Poland." So why does the art exhibit described in
> the new stories just seem to be pretentious and insensitive?
According to a famous story, shortly after the film open Brooks was accosted
in an elevator by a woman who insisted the film was in bad taste. Brooks
replied, "Lady, it's *beneath* bad taste."
The central joke of the movie is that opening production number which is
played, of course, as a celebration the Nazis. (The director, you'll
remember, had no idea that "the Third Reich meant Germany.") So one level it
works as a parody of a certain type of musical by having inappropriate
subject matter for chorus lines. But I think the joke goes beyond that. It
wouldn't work if they were singing "Springtime for Stalin." It has to be an
image of vanquished evil so potent that the very notion of celerating it
goes into the world of surreal absurdity.
Interestingly, film critic Andrew Sarris objected to the movie on the
grounds that he couldn't accept two obviously Jewish characters backing a
Nazi musical -- even though it is supposedly doomed to failure -- in order
to personally profit.
Jeremy M. Posner
"Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Mel Brooks is a master of taking an objectionable idea and displaying it
to such an absurd extreme that it becomes funny. Straying slightly from
his more Jewish-centric films, I think the best example of this style of
his is Blazing Saddles, which probably couldn't be made today. He creates
such an extreme display of racism in the film that most of the individual
bits from the film couldn't be repeated out of context without causing
extreme offense, yet the piece as a whole is so over the top that it's
hard to take offense at it...
-JMP
James Kahn
>On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 21:01:39 +0000 (UTC), James Kahn <ka...@nospam.panix.com> wrote:
>:>Isn't the point of the exibit to show the artists as evil for trivializing
>:>the holocaust, not to support their viewpoint? Or at least to open that
>:>dialogue?
>: For example, if you go
>: to the website (www.jewishmuseum.org), it describes the exhibit as:
>: "a selection of recent works ...
>: Employing the challenging language of conceptual art, the artists bring
>: the highly charged imagery of the Third Reich out of the past and into the
>: present, leading us to question how images shape our perception of evil
>: today."
>I see this last sentence to be akin to mine.
>The point is to evaluate the art and its message about evil and how we
>see evil. They didn't set up the exhibit to endorse its message.
Yours is a very charitable reading of their description. I see nothing
in the description that suggests the artists or their art might be evil.
Rather it focuses on how the art might affect us in the sense of our
spiritual growth and learning. In fact the sense of the whole description
(including the part that for some reason you took the effort to edit
out) is clearly very laudatory of the artists and their art. This
is "great art" that will make us reexamine our beliefs, etc., etc.
From what I've read (I admit I haven't seen the exhibit), I suspect
that in fact this is far from great art, and that it merely exploits
holocaust images as a means to attract attention and offend, and
that the Jewish Museum does a disservice to both Jews and art
by promoting it as it does.
Abe Kohen
"Jonathan J. Baker" <jjb...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:a74nii$l2t$1...@panix1.panix.com...
> In <.nj.org> BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL writes:
> >From: "Abe Kohen" <abek...@yahoo.com>
> >>"SAM HOPP" <sam...@juno.com> wrote in message
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>> What do you all think of the Holocaust exhibit at the Jewish Museum?
> >>> Is it really an affront or a new way to get us to think about the
> >>> banality of the evils of the Holocaust?
> >>
> >>The Jewish Museum, possibly facing fiscal bankruptcy, has opted for
moral
> >>bankruptcy.
>
> There is no such thing as bad publicity. The Brooklyn Museum taught
> that lesson well.
>
> >The "Jewish" Museum [tm] is affiliated with the Conservative Jewish
> >Theological Seminary.
>
> The Jewish Museum has a prominent picture of my wife learning at Drisha.
>
> >I think that says it all.
>
> No, it's more that they have a split personality as a museum of art run
> by Jews vs. a museum of Judaism for Jews and for others.
Had the Metropolitan Museum or the Whitney Museum run such an exhibit, the
protest would have been even greater. We would have been accusing them of
anti-semitism.
Just because its the "Jewish" Museum denigrating the memory of the victims,
it does not make the act any less pernicious.
Abe
Abe Kohen
> crosses the line from social commentary to offensiveness. As I've said
> before in this forum, as an artist myself, I will not condone
> censorship of art, no matter how offensive I find the artwork itself,
> as it's the beginning of a journey down a very slippery slope that
> leads to things far worse than the ideas expressed by the artwork.
Fine. Let's start showing pornography in grade school, lest we go down that
very slippery slope.
Abe
Abe Kohen
"Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
>
> Josh is just jealous because one of the world's greatest depositories of
> Judaica -- studied by Jewish scholars from all streams
> -- is at the JTS library in New York. :)
Point of interest. What do they have? How does one gain access?
Is it more extensive than the Vatican's collection of Judaica?
Abe
Barbara
<henry....@virgin.net> wrote:
>
>
>"SAM HOPP" <sam...@juno.com> wrote in message
>news:pgpmoose.2002...@scjm.nj.org...
>> Hello,
>>
>> What do you all think of the Holocaust exhibit at the Jewish Museum?
>> Is it really an affront or a new way to get us to think about the
>> banality of the evils of the Holocaust?
>>
>
>Which Jewish Museum do you mean?
http://www.jewishmuseum.org/Pages/Exhibitions/Special_Exhibits/mirroring_evil/mirror_intro.html
has some essays, etc., but no art. It also links to a response form
asking for feedback,
Barbara
Garry
What an excellent idea! I think every grade school student should
know about photography. It's useful to record family history and can
help them in their later careers. It's environmentally sensitive and
very creative and...
Oh -- you said pornography. That's very different. Never mind.
Dan Kimmel
"Abe Kohen" <abek...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a76dvt$ijguv$1...@ID-102750.news.dfncis.de...
I got the tourist's view (Gutenberg bible, documents from Maimonides, other
material from the Cairo geniza) not the scholar's.
My understanding is it is the greatest collection in the *western*
hemisphere.
Garry
We'll probably never know.
Abe Kohen
Thank you.
Abe
Jeremy M. Posner
<abek...@yahoo.com> wrote:
You're probably well aware of the difference there. No one is being
forced to enter the exhibition in question, while in many
jurisdictions, children are required to attend grade school.
Not all art is appropriate for all audiences, but that's no reason to
restrict the creation of such art. (As a parallel, many people believe
that Kabbalah should not be studied until one reaches the age of 40.
Does that mean that we should prohibit all study of Kabbalah to protect
those under 40?)
It is the responsibility of the organization displaying the work to
make sure that potential audience members have enough of an idea of
what's inside that they can make educated decisions for themselves
about whether or not to view it. By the very nature of anything related
to the Shoah, that decision must be a personal one, as every individual
is different.
Of course, there are other ways that museums are affected by public
opinion. I'm sure that the Jewish Museum will lose a significant number
of members (and by extension, donor funding) because of this exhibit.
On some level, any museum must cater to popular taste enough to
continue to get funding. (While the Jewish Museum was created through
the Warburg family's donation of their mansion to JTS for the creation
of a Jewish Museum, the museum operates almost completely independently
of JTS on both a financial and organizational level.) A museum that
consistently offends large parts of its audience/donor base will not
last very long.
On the one hand, the Jewish Museum will probably spend the next few
years rebuilding their connections to the people who have been their
most vocal critics over this exhibit, probably with varying degrees of
success. On the other hand, the massive publicity they've gotten will
attract new audiences, many of whom will also take the time to see the
museum's excellent permanent exhibit of Judaica and Jewish history.
In the end, the museum will probably make decisions on future
exhibitions based on the long-term fallout from this one, balanced
against the mission of the museum itself. If their goal is to raise
awareness and tolerance of Judaism among the greater NYC community,
their course of action will be different than if they decide that their
goal is to be a museum for the Jewish community. Both are worthy goals,
but the organization may be forced to choose.
Will I see the exhibit? Probably, as it's not too long a walk to get to
the museum from my apartment, and a friend who volunteers there tells
me it's really worth seeing to form an opinion for one's self.
Will I be offended? Quite possibly, but it remains to be seen whether
the offense is at the artwork or at the atrocities represented by the
artwork.
Would I dispute the museum's right to display such work? Never,
although that doesn't mean I'd contribute money to support the
organization. With the right to free speech comes the right to support
only groups that you agree with...
-JMP
Henry Goodman
"Jeremy M. Posner" <jpo...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:190320021018287869%jpo...@panix.com...
> In article <a76drp$is4ba$1...@ID-102750.news.dfncis.de>, Abe Kohen
> <abek...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "Jeremy M. Posner" <jpo...@panix.com> wrote
> > >
> > > I haven't seen the exhibition, so I can't comment on whether or not it
> > > crosses the line from social commentary to offensiveness. As I've said
> > > before in this forum, as an artist myself, I will not condone
> > > censorship of art, no matter how offensive I find the artwork itself,
> > > as it's the beginning of a journey down a very slippery slope that
> > > leads to things far worse than the ideas expressed by the artwork.
> >
> > Fine. Let's start showing pornography in grade school, lest we go down
that
> > very slippery slope.
>
> You're probably well aware of the difference there. No one is being
> forced to enter the exhibition in question, while in many
> jurisdictions, children are required to attend grade school.
>
Some of us live in jurisdictions that don't have 'grade schools'
For those of us that have no idea what the term means could you explain what
age children you are talking about.
--
Henry Goodman
henry....@virgin.net
Garry
How does this compare with portraying Haman in a Purim play? Haman
failed, so maybe it's less charged, but ....
>Interestingly, film critic Andrew Sarris objected to the movie on the
>grounds that he couldn't accept two obviously Jewish characters backing a
>Nazi musical -- even though it is supposedly doomed to failure -- in order
>to personally profit.
Academics are so naive.
BAC...@vms.huji.ac.il
>From: "Jeremy M. Posner" <jpo...@panix.com>
>Subject:Re: Jewish Museum
>Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 15:17:02 +0000 (UTC)
>Message-ID:<190320021018287869%jpo...@panix.com>
>In article <a76drp$is4ba$1...@ID-102750.news.dfncis.de>, Abe Kohen
><abek...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "Jeremy M. Posner" <jpo...@panix.com> wrote
>> >
>> > I haven't seen the exhibition, so I can't comment on whether or not it
>> > crosses the line from social commentary to offensiveness. As I've said
>> > before in this forum, as an artist myself, I will not condone
>> > censorship of art, no matter how offensive I find the artwork itself,
>> > as it's the beginning of a journey down a very slippery slope that
>> > leads to things far worse than the ideas expressed by the artwork.
>>
>> Fine. Let's start showing pornography in grade school, lest we go down that
>> very slippery slope.
>
>You're probably well aware of the difference there. No one is being
>forced to enter the exhibition in question, while in many
>jurisdictions, children are required to attend grade school.
>
>Not all art is appropriate for all audiences, but that's no reason to
>restrict the creation of such art. (As a parallel, many people believe
The entire administration of the Jewish Museum including the oysvorf
curator ought to get the CLOCKWORK ORANGE treatment having their eyes
taped open and being forced to watch NAZI atrocity films (the British
film of the liberation of Bergen Belsen is my first choice). After
say 10 hours of watching this material, I seriously doubt if this zevel
would ever allow the outrageous exhibit.
Josh
Eliyahu
"Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:sTIl8.4922$WP.9...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
eight years of school, with children starting school at about age 6. In most
areas, the breakdown is as follows:
Grade School/Elementary School -- 1st through 6th grades.
Junior High/Middle school -- 7th through 8th or 9th grades.
High school -- 9th or 10th through 12th grades.
These, of course, are in public schools which are just the opposite of your
public schools in that they're run by the local city or county. Privately
run schools usually follow the same pattern, but may differ.
Eliyahu
Eliyahu
<BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL> wrote in message
news:pgpmoose.2002...@scjm.nj.org...
site only shows three small paintings from it, on what are you basing your
argument here? I personally find it extremely difficult to critique art
that I haven't seen or books that I haven't read.
eliyahu
BlackMonk
> hippies strutting around slapping palms together who are supposed to
> be Hitler and Goebbels and Dick Shawn playing his swagger-stick like
> a bass and so forth, playing blues chords on the piano and singing
> "I'm gonna crush Poland." So why does the art exhibit described in
> the new stories just seem to be pretentious and insensitive?
Before judging the art exhibit, let's keep in mind that we haven't actually
seen it. I don't think it's fair to condemn a work unless you've actually
seen the work, and that applies as much to pieces of a coneptual nature as
it does to anything else.
A few years ago, I saw a Yoko Ono installation that consisted of 100 coffins
with trees growing out of them. Since I knew beforehand what the exhibit
consisted of, I thought I already understood the point behind it, but when I
actually saw it, I not only found it moving, but I also discovered layers of
meaning that hadn't occured to me before.
Yitzchak Goodman
I can imagine feeling the same way, but I get the impression that
this didn't come from details of the actual execution of the
concept, but simply because you sort of took it in as a visual
experience and let your mind play with the associations.
I understand how conceptual art is supposed to work, but
I can't imagine it making so much of a difference given some of
the concepts I've seen described for this exhibit, and also some
of the other conceptual art that occasionally makes the news.
In the stuff that is really going for shock value, it doesn't
seem as if there is that same room to explore the difference
between the concept as a concept and the concept actually executed;
it just seems the artist is throwing together stock responses
for rather trite reasons: we are supposed to "confront" this and
the art "challenges" that and forces us to "re-evaluate" such
and such, blah, blah, blah . . .
Yitz
Jeremy M. Posner
that you actually bothered to read what you were responding to. You
happened to pick an interesting example to refer to, that I simply have to
ask about.
In article <pgpmoose.2002...@scjm.nj.org>,
BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL wrote:
You mention Clockwork Orange, so I'm assuming that you've either read the
book or seen the film. Interestingly enough, the film was banned in
England because of fears that it over-glorified senseless violence and
would incite people to turn to lives of crime. Last I'd heard, the ban had
never been lifted.
Were you able to draw valuable lessons from the piece? It says a great
deal about human nature. Moreover, you could appreciate what the film has
to say, whether or not you agree with the message or the way it's given,
without it being an endorsement of the type of violence depicted.
Since we're now talking about a piece of art that you are actually
familiar with, do you believe that the book and/or film have more
substance than merely a depiction of violence? While many people are
insightful enough to see that there's more to the piece than the violence,
and that Burgess is not endorsing violence, do you believe that Clockwork
Orange should be banned so that those for whom it would be inappropriate
don't get to see it? What about the people who are able to gain insight
from it? Should they be prevented from accessing the piece because of
those who aren't able to handle it?
Should we censor anything that offends anyone? That would leave very
little left to enjoy, as there's going to be someone who gets offended by
all sorts of seemingly innocuous activities, let alone the ones that are
offensive to significant numbers of people. The problem is figuring out
where to draw the line on censorship. Do we draw the line at 1,000 people
being offended by something? I'm sure you wouldn't have to look very far
to find 1,000 anti-semites in the US who find all open Jewish religious
observance to be offensive.
So, how was your exposure to Clockwork Orange--a piece that many believe
is an unacceptable glorification of violence--any different from others
being allowed to view an exhibit that you now condemn at the Jewish
Museum, especially since you haven't even seen the exhibition in question?
-JMP
James Kahn
>So, how was your exposure to Clockwork Orange--a piece that many believe
>is an unacceptable glorification of violence--any different from others
>being allowed to view an exhibit that you now condemn at the Jewish
>Museum....
This is essentially the argument that there are no absolute standards,
or even something remotely approaching absolute standards, such that
we are ever allowed to criticize anything called "art" without
equally applying the criticism to everything else that bears any
superficial resemblance. While I disagree with Josh's prescription,
I assume he was being hyperbolic, and just expressing his view about
the tastelessness of the exhibit. (And yes, none of us has seen it, but
there has been enough information in the media--certainly here in NYC,
at least--to allow us to form some judgment.) Every time someone
criticizes an "art" exhibit (or anythign else) as being in poor taste,
defenders always trot out the "censorship" straw man. The issue is not
whether the Museum should be *allowed* to show the exhibit. The
issue is whether they *ought* to show it, or whether it is in poor taste.
"Clockwork Orange" was a disturbing film, and had scenes of horrifying
brutality (though perhaps not by today's standards), but the number
of people who think the film's intent was to glorify violence I
would have to believe is very small, as that was so obviously not
the point of the film. But again, censorship is not the issue; the
issue is judgment. While I would not dream of censoring this film,
I might still criticize a decision, say, to screen it for a group of
14-year-old violent juvenile delinquents just about to be released
from detention. Similarly, if some third-rate gallery wants to
show the stuff in this "Mirroring" exhibit, that's fine by me. But
what I (and I think others) object to is the JM as a major
cultural institution, and one with Jewish affiliation, putting it's
imprimatur on the works.
Z
BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL writes
>X-News: hujicc soc.culture.jewish.moderated:76698>>Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 01:28:26 +0000 (UTC)
>>Message-ID:<slrna9ago7....@amanda.dorsai.org>
>
>>In article <pgpmoose.2002...@scjm.nj.org>, SAM HOPP wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>What do you all think of the Holocaust exhibit at the Jewish Museum?
>>>Is it really an affront or a new way to get us to think about the
>>>banality of the evils of the Holocaust?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I haven't seen it. Have you?
>>As for Hogan's Heros...odds are if my mother would have watched it would not
>>remind her at all baout the Holocaust. What is the connection in your mind
>>between the Holocause and hogans heros or mel b???
>
>
>The Mel Brooks 1968 movie THE PRODUCERS.
>
>
>Josh (who got his MBA from the Max Bialystock School of Business
>Administration :-)
Is that the film where two Polish Actors own a theatre and the wife
whenever her husband recites "to be or not to be..." disappears to meet
her bit on the side backstage. Then some Jewish refugees hide out in the
theatre?
--
Z
Remove Zeds in e-mail address to reply.
Z
Henry Goodman <henry....@virgin.net> writes
>
>"Jeremy M. Posner" <jpo...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:180320020915372059%jpo...@panix.com...
>> In article <4Oll8.26500$w65.4...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
>> Henry Goodman <henry....@virgin.net> wrote:
>>
>> > "SAM HOPP" <sam...@juno.com> wrote in message
>> > news:pgpmoose.2002...@scjm.nj.org...
>> > > Hello,
>> > >
>> > > What do you all think of the Holocaust exhibit at the Jewish Museum?
>> > > Is it really an affront or a new way to get us to think about the
>> > > banality of the evils of the Holocaust?
>> > >
>> >
>>
>> 5th Avenue, in the former Warburg mansion.
>>
>> Yesterday, they opened a new exhibition called "Mirroring Evil," which
>> combines Nazi and contemporary imagery. For several weeks now, there
>> has been a great deal of very public debate about whether or not the
>> Jewish Museum should be showing such an exhibit, whether or not items
>> that incorporate Nazi imagery can be classified as art, and other
>> related arguments. There was a sizable crowd protesting outside the
>> museum during the day yesterday.
>>
>> I haven't seen the exhibition, so I can't comment on whether or not it
>> crosses the line from social commentary to offensiveness. As I've said
>> before in this forum, as an artist myself, I will not condone
>> censorship of art, no matter how offensive I find the artwork itself,
>> as it's the beginning of a journey down a very slippery slope that
>> leads to things far worse than the ideas expressed by the artwork.
>>
>> been almost entirely within the Jewish community here in NYC, the
>> protests were prominent stories in the local newscasts last night.
>> This, in turn, brought up the horrors of the Shoah to a larger audience
>> than would ever see the exhibit. While the means to this end are not
>> optimal, it is always important to raise awareness of the Shoah in the
>> secular community.
>>
>> Just my 2 cents. If I get around to seeing the exhibit, I'll be sure to
>> report it here...
>> -JMP
>
>Thanks, Jeremy. These newscasts didn't reach me in London so I had no idea
>what people are talking about. There are probably Jewish museums in most
>major cities that have a Jewish community, so the phrase 'The Jewish Museum'
>doesn't mean much.
>
>--
>Henry Goodman
>henry....@virgin.net
It was described as 'challenging art'.
I think like many contemporary 'artists' and advertising they are trying
more to shock.
One piece was a three walls of alternate pictures of Adolf Hilter as a
young man and during this reign of atrocity. It is reminiscent of the
way photographs of murdered victims of Auschwitz are displayed in the
Oswiecim State museum.
BAC...@vms.huji.ac.il
>From: Z <po...@imaZZZZris.demon.co.uk>
>Subject:Re: Jewish Museum
>Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 00:07:59 +0000 (UTC)
>Message-ID:<oA59wvB6...@imaris.demon.co.uk>
>In article <pgpmoose.2002...@scjm.nj.org>,
>BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL writes
>>X-News: hujicc soc.culture.jewish.moderated:76698
>>
>>>From: acke...@amanda.dorsai.org (Sheldon Ackerman)
>>>Subject:Re: Jewish Museum
>>>Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 01:28:26 +0000 (UTC)
>>>Message-ID:<slrna9ago7....@amanda.dorsai.org>
>>
>>>In article <pgpmoose.2002...@scjm.nj.org>, SAM HOPP wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>What do you all think of the Holocaust exhibit at the Jewish Museum?
>>>>Is it really an affront or a new way to get us to think about the
>>>>banality of the evils of the Holocaust?
>>>>
>>>>If the former, then how's it worse than Hogan's Heroes or Mel Brooks?
>>>>
>>>
>>>I haven't seen it. Have you?
>>>As for Hogan's Heros...odds are if my mother would have watched it would not
>>>remind her at all baout the Holocaust. What is the connection in your mind
>>>between the Holocause and hogans heros or mel b???
>>
>>
>>The Mel Brooks 1968 movie THE PRODUCERS.
>>
>>
>>Josh (who got his MBA from the Max Bialystock School of Business
>>Administration :-)
>
>Is that the film where two Polish Actors own a theatre and the wife
>whenever her husband recites "to be or not to be..." disappears to meet
>her bit on the side backstage. Then some Jewish refugees hide out in the
>theatre?
Wrong picture. Mel Brooks did do a remake of the famous 1941 film starring
Jack Benny but THE PRODUCERS was of a totally different genre.
[with apologies to real film critics like Dan Kimmel)
Max Bialystock is a once famous Broadway producer who is currently
bankrupt. He and his accountant, Leo Bloom, concoct a scheme where
Max will announce he's going to produce a new Broadway show, and oversell
percentage of ownership in the production (like 32,000 percent :-) ).
The catch ? They want the WORST script possible, something that will
close opening night. They hire a demented Nazi who writes a musical
comedy SPRINGTIME FOR HITLER on the Fuehrer's love live. The curtain
rises and the audience is speechless. ACT I ends and during the intermission
Max and Leo start celebrating, thinking they struck it rich. They come
back to the theatre for Act II. The audience is still dumbstruck until
someone starts laughing. To make a long story short: the play becomes
the biggest show on Broadway. See the movie for the great ending.
Josh (who is going to copyright the MAX BIALYSTOCK School of Business
Administration. Heck, I'll franchise the school and sell 32,000%
of the stock :-)
Z
<jpo...@panix.com> writes
>> The entire administration of the Jewish Museum including the oysvorf
>> curator ought to get the CLOCKWORK ORANGE treatment having their eyes
>> taped open and being forced to watch NAZI atrocity films (the British
>> film of the liberation of Bergen Belsen is my first choice). After
>> say 10 hours of watching this material, I seriously doubt if this zevel
>> would ever allow the outrageous exhibit.
>
British television is getting a bit like that. There is not a week
without some documentary of film about the Third Reich, The Holocaust or
a Nazi war criminal. Our eyes are not taped open, but the taping open of
the eyes was a juxtaposition of the transfer of ideas.
>You mention Clockwork Orange, so I'm assuming that you've either read the
>book or seen the film. Interestingly enough, the film was banned in
>England because of fears that it over-glorified senseless violence and
>would incite people to turn to lives of crime. Last I'd heard, the ban had
>never been lifted.
It was lifted a couple of years ago. It was in the cinema.
My dealer was a friend of the late Mr Kubrick or was he a Sir?
I didn't think the film was violent. It is certainly not violent
compared to Arnold Schartzenegger type films.
Z
There was a real play opened on Broadway a couple of years ago with a
similar thread, no?
BlackMonk
Both, actually. There was a sound effects tape that played in the
background (forest noises if I remember correctly), the coffins were built
in three different sizes, so some were obviously children's coffins, and
they were arranged in groups giving the effect that some died as part of a
family and some died alone. I didn't get any of this from reading the
description.
> I understand how conceptual art is supposed to work, but
> I can't imagine it making so much of a difference given some of
> the concepts I've seen described for this exhibit, and also some
> of the other conceptual art that occasionally makes the news.
Maybe, maybe not, but the descriptions on the news are inevitably going to
be incomplete.
> In the stuff that is really going for shock value, it doesn't
> seem as if there is that same room to explore the difference
> between the concept as a concept and the concept actually executed;
> it just seems the artist is throwing together stock responses
> for rather trite reasons: we are supposed to "confront" this and
> the art "challenges" that and forces us to "re-evaluate" such
> and such, blah, blah, blah . . .
>
Oh, I'm sure there's some conceptual art that does this. I just don't think
you can judge which pieces do it by reading about them. One thing about
conceptual art is that it's very easy to make it look foolish on paper since
it doesn't follow the tradtional idea of artist-as-craftsman.
And for some actual Jewish content: It strikes me that there's something
very Jewish about Fluxus, the early sixties artists collective that was one
of the forerunners of conceptual art, since they wanted to treat art the way
Judaism treats religion, making it inseperable from everyday life. There
isn't much different between turning lighting a match into art, and turning
the decision not to eat bacon into a religious act.
Garry
>
>
>
>Josh (who is going to copyright the MAX BIALYSTOCK School of Business
> Administration. Heck, I'll franchise the school and sell 32,000%
> of the stock :-)
>
I think Enron has beaten you to it.
Dan Kimmel
"Z" <po...@imaZZZZris.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fxKgM7C1...@imaris.demon.co.uk...
Mel Brooks turned his movie into a musical. It became a huge hit and is
sold out months in advance. (I'm seeing it in a couple of weeks.)
Yitzchak Goodman
>
> And for some actual Jewish content: It strikes me that there's something
> very Jewish about Fluxus, the early sixties artists collective that was one
> of the forerunners of conceptual art, since they wanted to treat art the way
> Judaism treats religion, making it inseperable from everyday life. There
> isn't much different between turning lighting a match into art, and turning
> the decision not to eat bacon into a religious act.
Perhaps we could get more people to keep kosher if
we promoted it as some sort of conceptual art.
It forces the diner to undergo a radical
confrontation with kugel . . .
Yitz
BlackMonk
There's a thought. Too bad they don't allow musical instruments in O
services. I'd go to a shul that had a naked female cellist.
(Ok, wrong crowd, but that would have killed them over on the Yoko lists.
Except most of them aren't Jewish. I guess no one gets my jokes.)
> Yitz
BAC...@vms.huji.ac.il
>From: Garry <GAR...@USA.withoutaNET.easynews.com>
>Subject:Re: Jewish Museum
>Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 03:25:45 +0000 (UTC)
>Message-ID:<lfuf9u4jvi3f5mqh8...@4ax.com>
>On Wed, 20 Mar 2002 00:38:10 +0000 (UTC), BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>Josh (who is going to copyright the MAX BIALYSTOCK School of Business
>> Administration. Heck, I'll franchise the school and sell 32,000%
>> of the stock :-)
>>
>I think Enron has beaten you to it.
[Like in the WIZARD OF OZ]: But what they haven't got is a diploma from
the Max Bialystock School of Business Administration :-)
Josh
BAC...@vms.huji.ac.il
>From: "Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net>
>Subject:Re: Jewish Museum
>Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 03:27:57 +0000 (UTC)
>Message-ID:<4cTl8.1261$Jc5....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>
>"Z" <po...@imaZZZZris.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:fxKgM7C1...@imaris.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <pgpmoose.2002...@scjm.nj.org>,
>> BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL writes
>> >ion in your mind
>> >>>>between the Holocause and hogans heros or mel b???
>> >>>
>>
>> >>>
>> >>>The Mel Brooks 1968 movie THE PRODUCERS.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>Josh (who got his MBA from the Max Bialystock School of Business
>> >>>Administration :-)
>> >>
>> >>Is that the film where two Polish Actors own a theatre and the wife
>> >>whenever her husband recites "to be or not to be..." disappears to meet
>> >>her bit on the side backstage. Then some Jewish refugees hide out in the
>> >>theatre?
>> >
>> >
>> >Wrong picture. Mel Brooks did do a remake of the famous 1941 film
>starring
>> >Jack Benny but THE PRODUCERS was of a totally different genre.
>> >
>> >[with apologies to real film critics like Dan Kimmel)
>> >
>> >Max Bialystock is a once famous Broadway producer who is currently
>> >bankrupt. He and his accountant, Leo Bloom, concoct a scheme where
>> >Max will announce he's going to produce a new Broadway show, and oversell
>> >percentage of ownership in the production (like 32,000 percent :-) ).
>> >The catch ? They want the WORST script possible, something that will
>> >close opening night. They hire a demented Nazi who writes a musical
>> >comedy SPRINGTIME FOR HITLER on the Fuehrer's love live. The curtain
>> >rises and the audience is speechless. ACT I ends and during the
>intermission
>> >Max and Leo start celebrating, thinking they struck it rich. They come
>> >back to the theatre for Act II. The audience is still dumbstruck until
>> >someone starts laughing. To make a long story short: the play becomes
>> >the biggest show on Broadway. See the movie for the great ending.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Josh (who is going to copyright the MAX BIALYSTOCK School of Business
>> > Administration. Heck, I'll franchise the school and sell 32,000%
>> > of the stock :-)
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>--
>> >>Z
>> >>Remove Zeds in e-mail address to reply.
>>
>> There was a real play opened on Broadway a couple of years ago with a
>> similar thread, no?
>
>Mel Brooks turned his movie into a musical. It became a huge hit and is
>sold out months in advance. (I'm seeing it in a couple of weeks.)
And now for a little Jewish content:
It's opening night on Broadway. There's not a ticket to be had; scalpers
are having a field day. A middle aged couple sees that next to them is
a little old Jewish lady sitting next to an empty seat. The man asks
her, "Whose seat is this ?" and the old lady replies, "My late husband
Irving". Still unable to restrain himself the man asks, "Surely you must
know some people who would have taken this seat !" and the old lady replies,
"yes BUT THEY'E ALL AT THE FUNERAL !" :-)
Josh
Russell Steinthal
Abe Kohen <abek...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
>>
>> Josh is just jealous because one of the world's greatest depositories of
>> Judaica -- studied by Jewish scholars from all streams
>> -- is at the JTS library in New York. :)
>
>Point of interest. What do they have? How does one gain access?
I don't know about post 9/11, but at least as recently as last year,
all you had to do was sign in and show some ID to get reading
privileges; I assume you need to do something more extensive to get
borrowing privileges or access to the rare books collection. (Which I
hear, second and third-hand, is quite impressive.)
>Is it more extensive than the Vatican's collection of Judaica?
This I don't know. A quick web search, however, did turn up the fact
that they have microform versions of rare documents found in the
Vatican library, which makes it somewhat more convenient for New
Yorkers like you and I, should we be curious. :)
-Russell
--
Russell Steinthal Columbia Law School, Class of 2002
<rm...@columbia.edu> Columbia College, Class of 1999
<ste...@nj.org> UNIX System Administrator, nj.org
Abe Kohen
"Russell Steinthal" <rm...@columbia.edu> wrote in message
news:a7af59$a3u$1...@condor.nj.org...
> In article <a76dvt$ijguv$1...@ID-102750.news.dfncis.de>,
> Abe Kohen <abek...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
> >>
> >> Josh is just jealous because one of the world's greatest depositories
of
> >> Judaica -- studied by Jewish scholars from all streams
> >> -- is at the JTS library in New York. :)
> >
> >Point of interest. What do they have? How does one gain access?
>
> I don't know about post 9/11, but at least as recently as last year,
> all you had to do was sign in and show some ID to get reading
> privileges; I assume you need to do something more extensive to get
> borrowing privileges or access to the rare books collection. (Which I
> hear, second and third-hand, is quite impressive.)
>
> >Is it more extensive than the Vatican's collection of Judaica?
>
> This I don't know. A quick web search, however, did turn up the fact
> that they have microform versions of rare documents found in the
> Vatican library, which makes it somewhat more convenient for New
> Yorkers like you and I, should we be curious. :)
Iy"h, I'll check it out shortly, as I'm very curious to see what they've
got.
Thanks,
Abe
Abe Kohen
"Jeremy M. Posner" <jpo...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:190320021018287869%jpo...@panix.com...
> In article <a76drp$is4ba$1...@ID-102750.news.dfncis.de>, Abe Kohen
> <abek...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "Jeremy M. Posner" <jpo...@panix.com> wrote
> > >
> > > I haven't seen the exhibition, so I can't comment on whether or not it
> > > crosses the line from social commentary to offensiveness. As I've said
> > > before in this forum, as an artist myself, I will not condone
> > > censorship of art, no matter how offensive I find the artwork itself,
> > > as it's the beginning of a journey down a very slippery slope that
> > > leads to things far worse than the ideas expressed by the artwork.
> >
> > Fine. Let's start showing pornography in grade school, lest we go down
that
> > very slippery slope.
>
> opinion. I'm sure that the Jewish Museum will lose a significant number
> of members (and by extension, donor funding) because of this exhibit.
> On some level, any museum must cater to popular taste enough to
> continue to get funding. (While the Jewish Museum was created through
> the Warburg family's donation of their mansion to JTS for the creation
> of a Jewish Museum, the museum operates almost completely independently
> of JTS on both a financial and organizational level.) A museum that
> consistently offends large parts of its audience/donor base will not
> last very long.
>
> On the one hand, the Jewish Museum will probably spend the next few
> years rebuilding their connections to the people who have been their
> most vocal critics over this exhibit, probably with varying degrees of
> success. On the other hand, the massive publicity they've gotten will
> attract new audiences, many of whom will also take the time to see the
> museum's excellent permanent exhibit of Judaica and Jewish history.
>
ACLU and Skokie. How long did it take them to rebuild?
Abe
Dan Kimmel
"Abe Kohen" <abek...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a7aioc$jpcr8$1...@ID-102750.news.dfncis.de...
They didn't have to "rebuild." Many Jews, such as myself, joined the ACLU
*because* they were right on Skokie.
Z
<po...@imaZZZZris.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <jposner-1903...@192.168.0.4>, Jeremy M. Posner
><jpo...@panix.com> writes
>>> The entire administration of the Jewish Museum including the oysvorf
>>> curator ought to get the CLOCKWORK ORANGE treatment having their eyes
>>> taped open and being forced to watch NAZI atrocity films (the British
>>> film of the liberation of Bergen Belsen is my first choice). After
>>> say 10 hours of watching this material, I seriously doubt if this zevel
>>> would ever allow the outrageous exhibit.
>>
>
>British television is getting a bit like that. There is not a week
>without some documentary of film about the Third Reich, The Holocaust or
>a Nazi war criminal. Our eyes are not taped open, but the taping open of
>the eyes was a juxtaposition of the transfer of ideas.
>
>>You mention Clockwork Orange, so I'm assuming that you've either read the
>>book or seen the film. Interestingly enough, the film was banned in
>>England because of fears that it over-glorified senseless violence and
>>would incite people to turn to lives of crime. Last I'd heard, the ban had
>>never been lifted.
>
>It was lifted a couple of years ago. It was in the cinema.
>My dealer was a friend of the late Mr Kubrick or was he a Sir?
>
Just in case of Maris Ayin I meant one of my Hi-Fi Dealers - Alistair
(Signals). He supplied the Michell Hydraulic Reference turntable
http://www.michell-engineering.co.uk/his.html for Clockwork Orange.
>I didn't think the film was violent. It is certainly not violent
>compared to Arnold Schartzenegger type films.
>>
>
In it's time it would have been violent but now it's no more violent
than The News at Ten.
Abe Kohen
That speaks volumes both about the ACLU and about yourself, but it is a
total lack of integrity to claim that the ACLU did not lose members and
support after the Skokie debacle.
"What the [ACL] Union did not count on was a vigorous counter-argument by
the Jewish Defense League, nor the loss of the support of its long-time
ally, the American Jewish Congress. The ACLU won the court case, though the
Nazis never marched in Skokie (ultimately parading at a site in downtown
Chicago), but the highly-publicized case caused a backlash resulting in a
large drop in membership. Neier, who had assumed the executive director's
post after the departure of John de J. Pemberton in 1970 and was accustomed
to growing membership rolls and increasing budgets, found himself unable to
reconcile the organization's activities with available funds and resigned."
Abe
CSR
henry....@virgin.net says...
> > > Fine. Let's start showing pornography in grade school, lest we go down
> that
> > > very slippery slope.
> >
> > forced to enter the exhibition in question, while in many
> > jurisdictions, children are required to attend grade school.
> >
>
> For those of us that have no idea what the term means could you explain what
> age children you are talking about.
Why Henry? At what age do you think schoolchildren _should_ be shown
pornography? :-)
--
Colin in Stavtrup
(To reply be email, remove gibberish
from the above address)
Henry Goodman
"CSR" <colinand...@conservativepartymanifesto.adslhome.dk> wrote in
message news:MPG.1703f529d...@news.inet.tele.dk...
Touché. They are allowed to watch X films at 18, but they are not legally
children then (may be still at school).
Did you know what a 'grade school' is?
--
Henry Goodman
henry....@virgin.net
CSR
reason I am not contributing to this thread is that I have not seen the
exhibition in question. Thank you for your patience.
Dan Kimmel
>
> "Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:Xm4m8.2340$aF.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > "Abe Kohen" <abek...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:a7aioc$jpcr8$1...@ID-102750.news.dfncis.de...
> > >
> > > "Jeremy M. Posner" <jpo...@panix.com> wrote in message
> > > news:190320021018287869%jpo...@panix.com...
> > > > On the one hand, the Jewish Museum will probably spend the next few
> > > > years rebuilding their connections to the people who have been their
> > > > most vocal critics over this exhibit, probably with varying degrees
of
> > > > success. On the other hand, the massive publicity they've gotten
will
> > > > attract new audiences, many of whom will also take the time to see
the
> > > > museum's excellent permanent exhibit of Judaica and Jewish history.
> > > >
> > >
> > > ACLU and Skokie. How long did it take them to rebuild?
> >
> > They didn't have to "rebuild." Many Jews, such as myself, joined the
ACLU
> > *because* they were right on Skokie.
>
> That speaks volumes both about the ACLU and about yourself,
And our principled stands.
> but it is a
> total lack of integrity to claim that the ACLU did not lose members and
> support after the Skokie debacle.
>
> "What the [ACL] Union did not count on was a vigorous counter-argument by
> the Jewish Defense League, nor the loss of the support of its long-time
> ally, the American Jewish Congress. The ACLU won the court case, though
the
> Nazis never marched in Skokie (ultimately parading at a site in downtown
> Chicago), but the highly-publicized case caused a backlash resulting in a
> large drop in membership. Neier, who had assumed the executive director's
> post after the departure of John de J. Pemberton in 1970 and was
accustomed
> to growing membership rolls and increasing budgets, found himself unable
to
> reconcile the organization's activities with available funds and
resigned."
What are you quoting? In fact, the ACLU won a lot of support in the face of
this backlash (and the JDL may have been vigorous, but they didn't have much
of a "counter-argument.") Here's the real story from p. 330 of "In Defense
of American Liberties" by Samuel Walker:
"The ACLU gained between 4,000 and 6,000 new members by mid-September 1978.
By one estimate, perhaps half of them joined *because* of the ACLU's defense
of the Nazis' right to demonstrate in Skokie.... The response suggested that
the hostility to the ACLU had been greatly exaggerated by the media and the
ACLU's own leaders in New York."
Walker points out that the Skokie controversy was probably one of the best
things to happen to the ACLU in terms of educating the public and energizing
civil libertarians who had incorrectly assumed their support was no longer
needed after Nixon resigned in 1974.
So, yes, on controversies like this there are always some Jews who will make
a big show of pulling their support and getting a lot of publicity in the
process -- which is, of course, their right -- but that will just make it a
bigger controversy and most Jews in the US recognize that support for free
speech is in our best interests.
Abe Kohen
http://libweb.princeton.edu/libraries/firestone/rbsc/finding_aids/aclu/
Abe
Harry Weiss
> "Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message >>
resigned." >> >> What are you quoting? In fact, the ACLU won a lot of
support in the face > of >> this backlash (and the JDL may have been
vigorous, but they didn't have > much >> of a "counter-argument.")
> http://libweb.princeton.edu/libraries/firestone/rbsc/finding_aids/aclu/
> Abe
Don't confuse him with the fact. In my view he crossed the line and I
will no longer read his posts.
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com
Dan Kimmel
From which you conveniently omitted the last sentence of the paragraph about
Ira Glasser quickly turned it around and raised half a million dollars.
It didn't fit in with your agenda about the ACLU -- and by extension -- the
Jewish Museum taking a big hit for daring to take a principled decision that
on some level might be offensive to Jews. The ACLU survived and thrived --
with Jewish support -- and the Jewish Museum undoubtedly will as well. In
other words, your analogy is correct, but not for the reasons you claimed.
Abe Kohen
Everybody can read the link, and arrive at their own conclusions, so no need
to continue your Clintonesque charade.
Abe
CSR
henry....@virgin.net says...
Yes, more-or-less, but I have actually lived on planet-USA for five
years. (Actually I was in Boulder Colorado, which is more a sort of
moonlet of planet-USA than part of the main celestial body.)
Dan Kimmel
"Harry Weiss" <hjw...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:a7diqi$dcl$1...@reader1.panix.com...
Given how you are fact-adverse, I'm not surprised. In the above, Abe left
out the last setence of a paragraph that disproved his thesis and in fact
blew his whole analogy that the Jewish Museum is going to suffer.
But since you have no interest whatsoever in the facts -- as evidenced by
your running away above -- one isn't surprised.
The above is for the record.
Abe Kohen
>
> "Harry Weiss" <hjw...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:a7diqi$dcl$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> > Abe Kohen <abek...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message >>
> > resigned." >> >> What are you quoting? In fact, the ACLU won a lot of
> > support in the face > of >> this backlash (and the JDL may have been
> > vigorous, but they didn't have > much >> of a "counter-argument.")
> >
> > >
http://libweb.princeton.edu/libraries/firestone/rbsc/finding_aids/aclu/
> >
> > > Abe
> >
> > Don't confuse him with the fact. In my view he crossed the line and I
> > will no longer read his posts.
>
> Given how you are fact-adverse, I'm not surprised. In the above, Abe left
> out the last setence of a paragraph that disproved his thesis and in fact
> blew his whole analogy that the Jewish Museum is going to suffer.
Once again you are projecting. Pinnochio is gone and Clinton has retired.
Abe
Dan Kimmel
Abe, you screwed up. You got caught. Be a mensch and admit it instead of
acting like our court-appointed president and pretending you're being fair
while pursing an extremist agenda.