о.Арониус (o_aronius) wrote,
о.Арониус
o_aronius

  • Music:

Current reading: "Набукко" без евреев и истоки теории апроприации

Хотя параллели между совдепией и гитлеровской Германией стали почти моветоном, просто не могу удержаться.

Как известно, сразу после революции большевики вынашивали грандиозные планы наполнить "ветхую" оперу новым революционным содержанием. Как пишет осведомленный мемуарист, "были заказаны одновременно переделки поэтической «Тоски» Пуччини на «Борьбу за коммуну», а «Гугенотов» Мейербера на «Декабристов». В «Гугенотах» вместо Рауля пел Рылеев, а Варфоломеевскую ночь ничтоже сумняшеся заменили восстанием на Сенатской площади".

Впоследствие эту затею оставили, однако время от времени комиссары в пыльных шлемах продолжали вмешиваться в текст либретто - достаточно вспомнить "Иоланту", которую чистили от религиозных мотивов, или "Жизнь за царя", стараниями Сергея Городецкого превратившуюся в "Сусанина".

И вот, прочитав монографию Лили Гирш A Jewish Orchestra in Nazi Germany: Musical Politics and the Berlin Jewish Culture League, аз, многогрешный, с интересом узнал, что в нацистской Германии "в области балета"(тм) происходило практически ТОЖЕ САМОЕ

Julius Kapp, the dramaturge of the Staatsoper Berlin, however, could not see past Nabucco’s Jewish setting. He reworked the opera to correspond to Nazi ideals. In the new version, which premiered in Kassel in January 1940, the plot focused on Nebuchadnezzar’s struggle with Memphis in 568 BCE, rather than his capture of Jerusalem in 587 BCE, and Egyptians replaced the Hebrews of Verdi’s original.

Еще более проблематичным для нацистов композитором оказался Гендель, который, будучи истинным арийцем, тем не менее много писал на еврейские темы. "Дело Генделя" разбиралось на самом высоком уровне, но даже это не спасло его от цензуры:

Still, in 1934, Handel’s works were carefully analyzed given the controversy that surrounded them. In fact, Goebbels, the president of the Reich Chamber of Culture himself, thoroughly examined the choral works of Handel.It was then oficially announced that “nothing has been discovered in the texts of Handel’s works which offers ground for any objection.”

Fritz Stein, nevertheless, sided with Rosenberg, and, in the summer of 1935, challenged the RMK’s authority with his new version of Handel’s Occasional Oratorio, renamed Fest-Oratorium.31 The projects that followed were either voluntary, or later, underwritten by state or party offices. The Reichsstelle für Musikbearbeitung, an office of the Propaganda Ministry founded in 1941, commissioned Johannes Klöcking to revise the texts of Israel in Egypt (recast as Der Opfersieg bei Walstatt) and Joshua (Die Ostlandfeier). Judas Maccabeus was subject to the most reworking—a testament to the relative worth the regime and nationalistic authors in general placed on the work. Perhaps those involved in these projects recognized the value Handel’s depiction of a proud victorious people held for a country on the eve of war. With a little effort, they could simply eliminate the evidence that the victorious were originally Jewish. The NSKulturgemeinde commissioned Hermann Burte to recast Judas Maccabeus as the Held und Friedenswerk (Hero and Work of Peace), an ode to Adolf Hitler.
Other revisions of the work were produced by Hermann Stephani, Ernst Wollong, and Johannes Klöcking and C. G. Harke (Der Feldherr, Freiheitsoratorium, and Wilhelmus von Nassauen, respectively).


Пы. Сы. Разумеется, сама Гирш подобных параллелей не проводит. Но зато замечательно проехалась по модной в нынешних прогрессивных кругах теории культурной апроприации - прямо указав, откуда, по ее мнению, у этой теории ноги растут:

Nazi leaders justi‹ed the creation of the League, in part, by arguing that when Jews performed German masterworks they degraded and polluted them. In short, Jews could and should only create Jewish music.

Such twisted logic corresponds in striking detail to the thinking behind the contemporary idea of cultural appropriation.
This practice, in one example, is the incorporation of musical traits from a minority culture in the composition by a member of the majority culture. In another example, it is the performance by a member of the majority culture of a musical piece from a minority culture. The results of such borrowings are said to be the degradation of the minority’s cultural good or tradition.
With this mind-set, there are those misguided few who rail against a white person’s performance of the blues in part to protect the art form from contamination. In “Race, Ethnicity, Expressive Authenticity: Can White People Sing the Blues” (1994), Joel Rudinow confronts this issue, citing a statement by the late jazz critic Ralph J. Gleason as his starting point: “The blues is black man’s music, and whites diminish it at best or steal it at worst. In any case they have no moral right to use it.”

Though the Jews were neither a majority culture nor a clearly defined cultural group, Nazi officials treated them as such and similarly denounced the effects of their appropriation of socalled German music. To illustrate, Hans Hinkel viewed Jews as a controlling force in Germany’s cultural realm. He appealed to his racial comrades to remember “to what an unbelievable degree contemporary German theater was in‹ltrated by Jews” in order to understand why the Nazis were forced to eliminate them from their posts. Hinkel, like Wagner before him, treated the Jews in this case as the majority, a dominating presence in Germany. In “Judaism in Music,” Wagner wrote, “According to the present constitution of this world, the Jew in truth is already more than emancipate: he rules and will rule, so long as money remains the power before which all our doings and our dealings lose their force.”

This thinking was dependent on the idea that culture, an intangible enterprise, is a property that can be possessed by a nation. Nazi ideologues claimed German music in this way: “Those holding responsibility in this Jewish organization [the Kulturbund] may now show what they can do for their racial comrades. We shall not disturb them if they do not meddle in our German cultural life. . . . Germany and its great cultural possessions belong to the Germans.” Reclaiming Germany’s cultural goods was necessary in order to avoid the consequences of this imagined Jewish appropriation.

P.P.S. Нашел в сети описание "Борьбы за коммуну". Таки да, глотать чернил и плакать:


Последние дни Парижской коммуны. В соборе скрывается старейший предводитель коммунаров Делеклюз. При обыске собора глава версальской армии Галифе обнаруживает красное знамя революции, а вместо фрески «страшного суда» – картину коммунара Арлена, изображающую «Торжество коммунизма». Арлен и его невеста, русская коммунарка Жанна, схвачены отрядом версальцев. Чтобы узнать, где прячется Делеклюз, Галифе подвергает Арлена пытке. Жанна вынуждена выдать тайну. Галифе склоняет Жанну отдаться ему, чтобы спасти жизнь жениха. Жанна симулирует согласие, но, при получении приказа о расстреле «холостыми», убивает Галифе. После «казни» Жанна и Арлен мечтают уехать в Россию
.

А Глинке, оказывается, еще повезло: «В Москве, оказывается, настолько увлеклись идеей переделки, что решили попросту перекроить все оперы. Поэт Вадим Шершеневич, например, заканчивает переработку «Жизни за царя» в «Жизнь за Совет».
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 38 comments