Churchill's Seven Jewish Children - Is This Play Anti-Semitic?- Page 2

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 6/18/09 at 6:09pm

Also, Fiddler SHOWED the horrible things going on, it didn't just talk about them.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 6/18/09 at 6:11pm

I'm curious why you think Churchill's play is a "sweeping generalization of the entire history of Jewish settlement"- or do you? I think she's presenting her opinion. You are certainly free to offer objections, but to say that an artist has to present "both sides" of a story is absurd beyond belief.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 6/18/09 at 7:49pm

But no one said she had to.

[Ole Chum]

Posted: 6/18/09 at 8:45pm

She can do whatever she wants- of course its her opinion. I thought we were discussing whether said opinion is anti-Semitic? In her opinion, Jewish/Israeli mothers teach their children to hate Arabs and urge to do unto Palestinians what the Germans did to the Jews.

She has the right to that opinion, and I have the right to call it what it is: irrational anti-Jewish sentiment dressed up as something more politically correct.

And, i should add, I strongly believe in both her right to say what she wants, and my right to call her on it. I bet she and I agree on that point, thought I wonder if she'd readily admit her play would have a greater chance of being produced, as is, in Tel Aviv than any other city in the Middle East.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 6/19/09 at 12:41am

Seven Jewish Children already has been performed in Tel Aviv at Rabin Square, in Hebrew.
Caryl Churchill's Seven Jewish Children staged in Tel Aviv

[Ole Chum]

Posted: 6/19/09 at 2:11am

democracy never ceases to amaze, huh?

best of luck to all the students in iran.

[Fan123]

Posted: 6/19/09 at 7:36am

There was recently some controversy surrounding this play in Australia. A Jewish actor, Miriam Margoyles, had her appearance at a Jewish welfare fundraiser cancelled because she was appearing in the play.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/entertainment/arts/charity-rejects-actor-over-antisemitic-play/2009/05/11/1241893918972.html

http://www.theage.com.au/news/entertainment/arts/bollocks-jewish-actor-defends-contentious-play/2009/05/07/1241289313892.html

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/letters/issue-is-of-context-not-the-theatre/2009/05/12/1241893979264.html

http://www.theage.com.au/news/entertainment/arts/critique-of-israel-not-antisemitism-margolyes/2009/05/13/1241894015914.html Updated On: 6/19/09 at 07:36 AM

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 6/19/09 at 1:02pm

The BBC has refused to air a radio broadcast of the play.

From this article, though I recommend reading it all:

"In a letter sent to the Daily Telegraph last month a number of prominent British Jews condemned the Royal Court for showing Churchill's play which they said portrayed Israeli parents as "inhuman triumphalists"."
BBC rejects play on Israel's history for impartiality reasons Updated On: 6/19/09 at 01:02 PM

[Pgenre]

Posted: 6/19/09 at 3:45pm

I think this thread is proof that Churchill succeeded in what she set out to do by writing this play.

A Good Nightmare Comes So Rarely,
P

[PalJoey]

Posted: 6/19/09 at 4:37pm

Or failed.

[madophelia]

Posted: 6/19/09 at 4:46pm

There was recently some controversy surrounding this play in Australia. A Jewish actor, Miriam Margoyles, had her appearance at a Jewish welfare fundraiser cancelled because she was appearing in the play.

Miriam Margoyles often appears in support of Palestinians, as does Mike Leigh (also Jewish). She is highly vocal in her denunciation of Israeli policies.

Caryl Churchill is part of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign.

Finally, the Guardian is Britain's left-wing broadsheet, which should give you some idea why it is giving the play so much coverage.

[notabb]

Posted: 6/19/09 at 5:25pm

having attended the reading at NYTW I felt the play WAS anti semitic. Easy to remedy though. Just add another 10 minute play called 7 Palestinian Children. It can start with a little girl turning off the t.v. and turning to her friends and saying " I can't wait til I'm old enough to kill the Jews who killed Farfel the mouse"

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 6/19/09 at 6:16pm

"I think this thread is proof that Churchill succeeded in what she set out to do by writing this play."

To do what? Call into question her credibility by proffering Anti-Semitism? Require a review of her works to see to what degree they may also contain Anti-Semitism? Cause a scrutiny of her life to determine any way she has promoted Anti-Semitism by speech, writing or association? Diminish her life's work as a playwright? Lose her credibility as an intelligent, informed, fair-minded person? Lose her credibility with regard to portraying history with any accuracy?

I just don't see a plus side here.

© 2009 nomdeplume by pseudonym, all rights reserved Updated On: 6/23/09 at 06:16 PM

[Pgenre]

Posted: 6/19/09 at 6:31pm

Listen, I will not add my two cents to this discussion other than to say a playwright's job is to provoke thought, disccussion and action.

Thought, discussion and action.

P

P.S. I do not believe a writer's political views or personal views should have any effect on how one perceives a work of fiction. That's why its called FICTION. Writing an anti-semetic play does not make one an anti-semite, it makes one a playwright, just as writing a pro-Jewish play does not make the writer pro-Jew. And there are few things I hate more than writing literary theory, particularly here where the work will go unappreciated and misunderstood for the most part, but if anyone would like to give Foucaultian, Brechtian, Marxist,etc. readings of this text I'd love to see how it is intrepreted by those schools of thought and that may give us some further insight into the play. It seems as though many are giving it a Marxist reading from the posts on this thread.
Updated On: 6/19/09 at 06:31 PM

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 6/19/09 at 6:35pm

No Pgenre, a playwright has a responsibility to this generation, and to those who read their work in the future, which far exceeds provocation.

I am not with you there.

© 2009 nomdeplume by pseudonym, all rights reserved Updated On: 6/23/09 at 06:35 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 6/19/09 at 6:41pm

You're like a dog clamped on a bone over this topic. In an effort at full disclosure, did Churchill get a production slot you were hoping one of your plays would get or something like that?

[Pgenre]

Posted: 6/19/09 at 6:55pm

You must be quite a bit older than me, nomdeplume, because in the age of Spiedi (pronounced SPY-dee and not to be confused with a marinated meat kabob -(or should it?)) I think that's the MOST we can ask our authors to do at this late date, to provoke thought.

In an age of bland conformity and grave political/religious fear (our new president an excellent example of that, and the only positive thing you can say about the man before him was he was fearless, ignorantly so, but fearless nonetheless), in particular. I won't even begin on the PC police running rampant and trying to thwart anything remotely outside the box, like this play.

You do realize 17 of the top 20 shows on television are unscripted and 3/4 of the shows on Broadway are unoriginal (based of movies/jukebox musicals)? The writer is dead in our society, if you can even call it that, and for any PLAYwright to write something so controversial AND politically-charged as to be a Top Headline is to be commended whether or not you agree with what the playwright is saying, if only because it keeps theatre momentarily in the cultural zeitgeist (and a good piece of theatre at that). Face it, without this play the biggest theatre story of the year would be Bret Michael's getting injured at the Tony's (an indictment of the theatre in general in and of itself).

But what does being a part of the cultural zeitgeist truly imply... can you truly be IN something and not OF it? And isn't it really not true to call what exists in this country a culture or a civilization (certainly not a society), anyway? From what I've seen in my 24 years, this country hasn't really been a culture since the internet came around.

Bottom line: it's not a question I'm willing to answer, nor one that Churchill will (or should). I frankly don't think a play can really be anti-semetic, it can only be PERFORMED as such.

Nonetheless, this is a fascinating subject for dicussion and I thank nomdeplume for making it its own topic!

P

P.S. I totally agree it's second-tier Churchill, but I shan't be too critical because I've put my foot in my mouth in the past when pre-judging her work only later to find I missed something that changes my entire perception of the enterprise.

P.P.S. For any culinary connosieurs on this thread (which I know there's at least one!) the "Spiedie" (pronounced SPEE-DEE) is a meat kabob (chicken or lamb) known for a particular marinade (Salimeda Sauce being avialible in many East Coast grocery stores) invented by the Salimeda (the granddaughter of whom I performed in BRIGAYDOON (sic) with in highschool) family in my hometown Binghamton, NY.
Updated On: 6/19/09 at 06:55 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 6/19/09 at 7:03pm

"From what I've seen in my 24 years, this country hasn't really been a culture since the internet came around."

Every Achilles has his heel. Before that people blamed television. Before that people blamed Hollywood. All the way back to shadow puppets on cave walls. Your discussion points were going really well until you got to that one.

[Ariella]

Posted: 6/19/09 at 7:03pm

Tony Kushner has adamantly defended Churchill's piece, and the article he published in The Nation several months ago has some interesting insights.
Tell Her the Truth

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 6/19/09 at 7:06pm

I dunno, I think the critiques and defenses are pretty evenly matched this time. It's really up to the individual, IMO.

Updated On: 6/19/09 at 07:06 PM

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 6/19/09 at 7:07pm

Pgenre, I do hear your unhappiness at the level of cultural debate we presently have within a lot of the "arts" in this country.

I appreciate your having this brought this play to my attention in the Absurdist thread.

I may disagree with you on things but I would fight for your right to express and share your opinion.

[Pgenre]

Posted: 6/19/09 at 7:14pm

Namo, you must not have tried to carry on any uninterrupted conversations with any 24-year-olds (or younger) recently because the rapid devolvement of language and communication is positively jaw-dropping. When was the last time you spoke to someone of my generation and weren't interupted by a buzz or a bell or (god forbid) Miley Cyrus or Flo Rida (a rapper, not a state if case you weren't aware) in the form of a ringtone.

People are addicted to technology and those f*cking skype/twitter/iphone monstrosities have turned an entire generation into babies at the teet in almost every way.

My mentor, a close friend of mine who has written in literary and medical journals for 30 years claims I am part of an infantilized generation who were raised with formula (not mother's milk, and I really don't want to open that can of worms), graduated to nipple-topped water bottles (80% of poland springs bottles have "sports tops" which are plastic nipples) and now satiate ourselves with i-addicitons. We were never weened so we remain babies in attitude, mind and temperment.

It's not shadow puppets, or TV, or "talkies" that have caused this country to fall so far so fast... it's the end of formal communication and, dare I say it, wit.

P

P.S. nomedeplume thanks so much for such a classy reply! i'd expect no less and I'm so glad that there's at least one really thought-provoking thread on the board today thanks to you!

P.P.S. The fact that the play is 10 minutes long (and Churchill always has written for her audience) and a pseudo nursery rhyme seems to be indicative and expository of much that I have said re:an increasingly infantilized culture.


Updated On: 6/19/09 at 07:14 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 6/19/09 at 7:24pm

I get what you're saying, P, but as I pointed out in another thread the other day, Plato also used to grouse about the younger generation. Complaining about "these kids today" is, clearly, nothing new. But it's not the fault of younger people that language has devolved, it's the lack of value placed on language by the culture. George W. Bush was more than twice your age and mangling the language left and right, and he probably didn't even know how to access the internets.

Plus, I like Miley Cyrus.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 6/19/09 at 7:29pm

There have been a lot of tears in our social fabric, Pgenre, and our communities as support structures are in very bad shape. The shortening of attention spans has not helped and our culture has undergone a tremendous amount of changes which has also led to problems. I've gone to other countries and seen more sociable and healthy, engaged communities on the local levels.

But back to this play. It does make me think of Brecht's The Jewish Wife in that it is laced with a kind of hiding and paranoia about the "truth" coming out. Of course it seems its antithesis because in Brecht's play the family was trying to hide the wife's Judaism from the intruding, unwanted Nazi housekeeper. Personally I don't think that saves Churchill's play as being worthwhile because of the other problems with the play that I've mentioned.

© 2009 nomdeplume by pseudonym, all rights reserved Updated On: 6/23/09 at 07:29 PM

[Pgenre]

Posted: 6/19/09 at 8:03pm

YES! THE JEWISH WIFE! YES!

I try to avoid pretentiousness while here (believe it or not) so I tend not to make as many Brecht references as I may like, but I thought the same thing in reading this months ago! I think Churchill was doing almost exactly what Brecht was trying to do in THE JEWISH WIFE (and MOTHER COURAGE AND HER CHILDREN) and that is to empart the PARANOIA that results from the politics/religion moreso than the relative merits of the actual politics or religion itself. Once again, I am desperately trying to remain mum on the Marxist or Brechtian reading of the text so I won't answer the topical question, but I think the answer is that the play is not anti-semetic but it READS as such and may be PERCEIVED as such. In PERFORMANCE, for which this was written, one may get a much different understanding of the material. And that one-woman reading, while thrilling, isn't the way in which the play is really meant to be performed... either way, that Kushner article just made my brain about EXPLODE after considering the notions brought up here.

Now it's time for a drink... or whatever. Cheers to all who've made this thread so fascinating (so far)!

P

P.S. Coming off of Namo's Cyrus confession - I like Flo Rida. But not as a ringtone, ever. "Halloween" by John Carpenter on the other hand... (the amount of people who have JUMPED when hearing that music is truly indicative of the impact the media has on our society... or at least the impact HALLOWEEN, that Argento-rip-off film (it's almost shot-for-shot PROFUNDO RUSSO) has had. Updated On: 6/19/09 at 08:03 PM