Archive for January, 2006
January 30th, 2006
Fordham Forum Explores Intersection of ‘Law, Culture and Society’
Thomas Adcock
01-27-2006
To bring what he calls “a different kind of clarity” to troubling questions of justice, Professor Thane Rosenbaum of Fordham University School of Law has launched an ongoing public forum in which distinguished artists reflect on the limits of the U.S. legal system.
Novelist E.L. Doctorow and playwright Tony Kushner, both of whom have offered fictive interpretations about the still-controversial 1950 espionage trial and later execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, were the first guests.
On Jan. 19 at the Time-Warner Café in Columbus Circle, Messrs. Doctorow and Kushner spoke on the Cold War-era trial before Southern District Judge Irving R. Kaufman; evidence found wanting decades later in documents from the toppled Soviet Union; and its international cause célèbre aftermath: the Rosenbergs’ deaths by electrocution in 1953, which orphaned their two young sons.
In introductory remarks before an audience of about 200, Fordham Law Dean William M. Treanor explained the evening’s purpose. “We’re lacking a way to talk about ideas of law and justice and how they shape our culture,” he said. “Two of the world’s greatest writers will discuss a case that has haunted our imaginations for a half-century.”
Mr. Doctorow, whose 1971 novel “The Book of Daniel” was inspired by the Rosenberg case, said “questions of guilt or innocence” were less important to the theme of his book than “the pulse of the country” in the anti-Communist fervor of the 1950s, and due to the energies of historic players of the era such as Roy Cohn, who second-chaired the Rosenbergs’ prosecution and thereby drew the admiring attention of U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy.
The role of the novelist in considering a case as politically and emotionally laden as the Rosenberg trial, said Mr. Doctorow, was to examine the ambiguities of “complicated, defining events.” He said such cases may be closed according to the dry formality of law - and certainly by electrocuting the convicted parties - but they are never quite closed in the public mind, which requires deeper answers.
“A book or a play may not provide redemption,” said Mr. Doctorow. “But they have the distance to deliver a moral judgment.”
He added, “We live lives of moral consequence, whether we’re lawyers or judges or whatever. The moral truth is the final prophecy. If you do your work right and the book works, that’s better than vengeance. It serves as justice of a sort.”
Mr. Doctorow’s verdict in “Daniel” does not favor the likes of Roy Cohn, who was disbarred in New York on grounds of unethical and unprofessional conduct and who died in August 1986 of complications from AIDS. Nor does Mr. Kushner’s harsh portrayal of the disgraced lawyer in “Angels in America,” a fantasia about life in the age of AIDS, look kindly upon Mr. Cohn’s passions.
“I loved writing Roy Cohn’s character,” said Mr. Kushner. “I hate to admit that. I was careful not to attribute anything to Cohn that was not on the public record. It was important not to invent anything to defame him beyond that.”
Mr. Kushner’s award-winning play also included the ghost of Ethel Rosenberg, who pronounced both justice and forgiveness on Mr. Cohn in a hospital bedside scene in which the ghost said Kaddish, adding to the Hebrew prayer for the dead: “You son of a bitch.”
Ongoing Forum
In an interview, Mr. Rosenbaum further explained the mission of his discussion programs -collectively to be called the Forum on Law, Culture and Society.
“We want to be a place where you can come and hear how the legal system affects not just the parties to the action, but everyone,” said Mr. Rosenbaum, himself the author of three critically acclaimed novels, including “The Golems of Gotham.”
Future programs, he said, could include previews of plays and films on legal themes, as well as conversation-style seminars such as the inaugural event. The next event, planned for late spring, will feature screen and TV writer Tom Fontana, creator of the prison drama “Oz” for HBO, and film director Sydney Lumet (”The Verdict” and “Twelve Angry Men”). The two will discuss their new movie project, “Strip Search.”
All forums will feature further discussion online at fordhamlawandculture.blogspot.com. The blog is already packed with post-event commentary on the Jan. 19 program.
Of principal concern in future programs, said Mr. Rosenbaum, will be the nature of law versus the nature of morality. “What’s legal isn’t moral. The legal system in many ways encourages the split,” said Mr. Rosenbaum. “Apology, for instance. The legal system does everything to dissuade apology. And lying is not really punished under the law.”
He added, “Legal relief is a misnomer. It’s not like medical relief - ‘Oh, yeah, I feel better.’ The legal system is not good - it doesn’t want to be good - about giving people what they long for. And people want to speak to that.”
Thomas Adcock can be reached at tadcock@alm.com.
Posted by James Peiser | in Culture Forum Blog | No Comments »
January 24th, 2006
I was a bit confused by the student’s question, as well, because in class we discuss those scenes as examples of the generational consequences of injustice–essentially, the post-traumatic stress of having one’s parents executed in front of the world, which resulted in the orphaning of two small children. What would we expect of those children when they reach adulthood? Susan is a suicide victim, and Daniel mutilates and abuses his own family. I think the student would agree with you, Michael, that the novel ends in the spirit of repair and reconciliation–if not simple resignation–but I think she felt that there is an impulse toward violence that is an inevitable consequence of having destroyed the lives of the Isaacsons, so that even though Susan and Daniel have not taken vengeance on the outside world, they have instead essentially mutilated themselves.
Posted by Thane Rosenbaum | in Culture Forum Blog | No Comments »
January 23rd, 2006
I was struck, Thane, by one of your students’ questions. She argued that the story told in the Book of Daniel could be a counter-argument to both Tony and Edgar’s support for the idea that healing redemption is always a better way to go than revenge. [The context of the film MUNICH is a remarkable coincidence to this evening where revenge killings clearly spiralled out of control — ending with suicide bombings and literal airplane bombings perhaps ad infinitum!]. Her argument was to focus on “Daniel’s” violent behavior towards his wife and his son as caused by his inability (failure?) to take revenge on the real villains. Certainly we see images of this kind of behavior all over society — the oppressed man (a person of color subjected to racism as in THE WINDING SHEET, the oppressed worker [ethnicity irrelevant] in story after story) who beats his weaker family members.
I think the question missed something in Edgar’s book and it wasn’t clarified in the answer. By the end of the novel, when Daniel is confronting Selig Mindish he “lets go” of any desire to take any vengeance. And, the Daniel at the end of the novel (remember he says, “I think I can now cry” or something close to that) is MUCH DIFFERENT from the more violent mercurial Daniel at the beginning and the middle.
If anyone is interested (completely shameless plug coming up) my daughter Ivy’s film HEIR TO AN EXECUTION has on the DVD version a long interview with Tony where he goes into much more detail about his view on the need for redemption and forgiveness — even suggesting that David Greenglass is a candidate for forgiveness and redemption — . You don’t have to buy it, you can rent it from NetFlix or take it from a library.
Posted by Thane Rosenbaum | in Culture Forum Blog | 1 Comment »
January 23rd, 2006
“Daniel” is about the generational consequences of legal decisions, how the law, and its failings, can affect not just the parties to the action, but also their children, and future generations. The fictional children of the Rosenbergs ended up being haunted by their parents’ execution, and were essentially imprisoned by it. Any comments?
Is it frightening to think that the politics of the times can dictate a legal result regardless of what the law actually requires? Or should we want our laws to be placed on hiatus, or be less restrictive, during times of great upheaval and crisis?
In “Angels in America,” when Belize says that “Forgiveness may be where love and justice finally meet,” what does he mean?
Posted by Thane Rosenbaum | in Culture Forum Blog | 2 Comments »
January 22nd, 2006
Ivy Meeropol’s film, Heir To An Execution, examines the Rosenberg case through the eyes of both a talented documentary filmmaker and a granddaughter connecting to the grandparents she never knew in life. Ms. Meeropol participated in an illuminating conversation with HBO viewers online, touching on many themes explored in the film (and the Forum’s Thursday night conversation with Mr. Kushner and Mr. Doctorow).
See Also The New York Times Movie Summary.
Posted by James Peiser | in Culture Forum Blog | No Comments »
January 22nd, 2006
New York Times article by Adam Liptak.
Posted by James Peiser | in Culture Forum Blog | 1 Comment »
January 22nd, 2006
The conversation with Doctorow and Kushner was so stimulating and tought provoking, and they were so animated in their responses, there were, unfortunately, several questions I never got around to ask. Perhaps I can get them to publish a comment to this post, but for now I invite the bloggers to our Forum to respond, as well.
Was Ethel Rosenberg the more tragic figure because she was truly innocent in ways that, perhaps, her husband was not?
Had they not been executed, but rather served their entire lives in prison, would we still have found them so fascinating, or was it the execution, for the reasons they were executed without mitigation, thta continues to haunt us?
Are artists completely seduced by people of conscience, those with great passion for their beliefs, who live for ideas and are willing to die for them, too–the kind of people who refuse to name names?
Why is it that artists find radicals so fascinating as fictional subjects, and why are these radicals always on the left side of the political spectrum? (For instance, you don’t see many heroic renderings of abortion protestors blowing up abortion clinics.) Is it that radicals on the left make for better fictional characters, or is it that artists are themselves on the left and therefore create characters, or are drawn to characters, who think like them, or act in ways that they wish they could act?
Posted by Thane Rosenbaum | in Culture Forum Blog | 2 Comments »
January 20th, 2006
“This is my rendering”
Thane quoted Mr. Kushner (himself paraphrasing Plato), from a 1995 interview in Mother Jones magazine: “People shouldn’t trust artists and they shouldn’t trust art.” He then asked for thoughts on history being filtered through the mind, the imagination. In response, Kushner said, “I think that there are issues of responsibility… I was very careful with Roy Cohn [as a character in Angels in America] not to attribute anything to him that he didn’t himself claim.” He stated that he wrestled with “whether it is ethically responsible to fictionalize a living person.” Mr. Doctorow added his perspective: an author is “similar to an artist. Set up your easel and there’s a subject, a real life subject. There’s your rendering. The compact between you and the audience is clear, ‘this is my rendering.’”
“Yes and Not Necessarily”
Later, expanding on the notion of the artist’s rendering, Doctorow offered that “public figures make fictions of themselves. If you really want to read fiction about J.P. Morgan, read his authorized biography…I’ve never written about a public figure in which I feel I’ve been lying.” Kushner said, “with historical fiction, there are 2 questions, and the answers should be ‘Yes’ and ‘Not Necessarily.’ The first question is, ‘Did this happen?’ and the second is, ‘Did it happen in this way?’”
“The Final Prophecy”
Thane then invited Kushner and Doctorow “to think about the implications of revenge as a model of justice,” providing that, “with respect to the Rosenbergs, neither of you seem interested in revenge, but much more interested in forgiveness.” Kushner spoke of the impossibility of healing in a legal context: “we’ll never get justice in the courts, this [redemptive storytelling] is the only way to get justice.” Doctorow added that “We all live lives of moral consequence, and finally the whole scene has to be delivered and … the moral truth of the issue is the final prophecy, if you will, of what’s going on.”
We are awaiting photographs and, potentially, audio or video recordings of the evening; when anything becomes available online it will be accessible via this site. Please use the comments link below to discuss these excerpts or anything else that was said during the event!
Posted by James Peiser | in Culture Forum Blog | 2 Comments »
January 20th, 2006
Many thanks to all who attended tonight’s wonderful program and have now taken the time to visit this site!
Tomorrow (Friday 1/20) will see a more substantive posting, with quotes from Messrs. Kushner, Doctorow, and Rosenbaum, and photos will follow as soon as they become available; for now, as was stated during the evening, we truly want the conversation to continue here in cyberspace. Click on the “Comments” link below this post and add your thoughts, observations, questions, insights, and suggestions. Only through wide collaboration can this Forum truly succeed in our mission.
Thank you once more, and let the discussion, started so beautifully this evening by Thane and our remarkable guests, continue.
Posted by James Peiser | in Culture Forum Blog | No Comments »
January 19th, 2006
In thinking about the portrayal of the Rosenbergs in “The Book of Daniel” and “Angels in America,” and all the emotions of the Cold War, do we hold artists responsible to get it right, to be factually accurate, as if they are historians, journalists, and lawyers, or are we asking them to provide us with different kinds of truths?
Posted by Thane Rosenbaum | in Culture Forum Blog | 6 Comments »
