Oh, for the days that we have seen

[selenak]

There’s this lovely old gentleman I know, Edgar Feuchtwanger, nephew of Lion Feuchtwanger the novelist I wrote my thesis about. Edgar F left Germany age 14 as part of the Kindertransport, which probably saved his life. He became a British citizen, married, had children, taught as a historian at Winchester university, published books on various subjects (with a speciality to Victorian times), most recently memoirs of his boyhood. Whenever I visit Britain, I try to see him, and since he still (occasionally, he’s physically fragile now) participates in some conferences on the subject of Lion Feuchtwanger or other exiles, I sometimes see him on these conferences as well. He’s kind, wise, and I only wish that when I age, it will be with his grace and dignity.

Now, because the mail in December isn’t the most reliable, I sent him my present early on. Yesterday, he emailed me to say it arrived safely, and in his mail he also mentioned that he, all his children and their children have just claimed and been granted the German citizenship which in Germany is the right of anyone who lost it due to the Third Reich (and their descendants).

It makes me feel so - I don’t know how. On the one hand, I’m glad he can do this. That he sees Germany today, with all its flaws, as a nation to be citizen of again. On the other hand, the obvious reason why he and his family did this makes me so sad. In the grotesque horror that the Orange Menace spreads, it’s easy to lose sight of the geographically (to me) closer grotesque insanity that is Brexit and the change of mentality in a country whose literature, pop culture, landscapes etc. I’ve always loved, and where I have so many friends. But I relate to Britain as a visitor. For Edgar Feuchtwanger, it was and is home. It was a safe harbor from the worst point of German history. It was where he made a life. And of course his children (all older than yours truly) are as English as they come.

Now Edgar Feuchtwanger is over 90 years old. This is so not how anyone’s life should come full circle.

Moving from fact to fiction (and fictionalized history) again: this review of THE POST, aka Steven Spielberg’s movie about the publication of the Pentagon Papers, mentions that besides the leading duo of Tom Hanks (of course) as Ben Bradlee and Meryl Streep as Katherine Graham, it stars ‬Bob Odenkirk as reporter B.  Bagdikian,  and Matthew Rhys as Daniel Ellsberg. Which means both my inner Better Call Saul and The Americans fan needs to see it. (If either fandom had more fanfiction-writing people in it, I’d expect crazy crossovers, but alas, the tales where a time travelling Saul Goodman/Jimmy McGill works for the Washington Post or Richard Nixon belatedly is proven right by the revelation that Daniel Ellsberg really worked for the KGB won’t be written.

Sidenote I: it wasn’t until yesterday and a certain tweet [Bad username or unknown identity: “likeadeuce”] retweeted that it occured to me Philip and Elizabeth in The Americans have the same names as the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh and might even have been named after them, i.e. their cover identities, on either a Doylist (the producers wanting an in-joke?) or Watsonian (one KGB official in charge felt whimsical) level.

Sidenote II: I saw an interview with Daniel Ellsberg somewhere last week where he mentions it’s odd that Spielberg chose to focus on the WP, when it was the New York Times who did all the work in that particular case, with the Post only coming in at the tail end. The same articles mentioned a few disgruntled NYT veterans who do feel this movie should have been their “All the President’s Men, and why give the glory fo the Post again. At a guess, because Spielberg liked that other movie a lot. And unfortunately, that’s all too often how historical drama (be it movies, tv shows, or theatre) works - people get edited out or reduced to minor roles when in reality they were the major players. (If they don’t get villainized. In Spielberg’s last historical movie, Bridge of Spies, this happened to the German lawyer of the American whose freedom the movie’s hero and his American lawyer, played by Tom Hanks (of course) was negotiating. In Spielberg’s movie, Vogel is a glib and sinister (in turns) Stasi apparatchik. Meanwhile, quoth the real life Frederic Pryor (i.e. the captured American in question): “The portrayal of Wolfgang Vogel, my East German lawyer who was negotiating the communist side, was unfair. They made him out to be a total apparatchik, and one of the villains. He wasn’t. He was a quiet, well-spoken man. The movie made it out to be a political thing, him trying to get the U.S. to publicly recognize the East German government. But it was more a waiting game the East Germans played to show the Russians they had the upper hand. Vogel was actually a very nice guy, whom I later visited several times.") (In this interview.
 
Back to the review of The Post I linked above. Key quote in is 70s nostalgia:
 
An American president who is evil but not stupid. People who publish leaked documents without winding up barricaded in London’s Ecuadorian embassy. People who publish leaked documents without winding up endorsing a president who is evil and stupid. And to add to this gorgeous period detail, Spielberg reproduces some of the characteristic middle-distance sound design and overlapping dialogue of his film work from the 70s.

Says something about the present day, doesn’t it, when the part of the 70s you want back isn’t the music but the non-stupid villains.

Lastly, I still have free slots for themes of your choice to ramble about in January, here.
 
 

Comments

[ex_peasant441]

I probably shouldn't start this conversation since I doubt it will end well, but why on earth are you describing Brexit as a grotesque insanity? Surely by now you can see that it is a perfectly civilised renegotiation of terms between friends and neighbours? We British wish to regain full democratic control over the people who make our laws, this is hardly unsurprising or exceptionable. You Europeans wish, I am sure, to remain on good terms with us both culturally and for trade. The wilder statements of Project Fear have long since been shown to be pure fantasy and can now surely be discarded by anyone of sense. There is no grotesque insanity on either side, nor will there be as we all move forward into a new format of cooperation.

[selenak]

First of all, “we”? As far as I know, barely half of the people who actually voted wanted to leave. And surely you mean the Leave campaign when you say “Project Fear”, because fear was certainly their modus operandi.

Secondly: “civilised”? After a campaign based on lies (350 Millions for the NHS), xenophobia complete with lies (“Turkey will join the EU”) and an utter lack of economic calculations (as has been admitted by now, they simply didn’t do them).

Thirdly: “control”? Led by a government whose sheer incompetence (everyone), buffoonery and egomania (Johnson), and deluded (Davis) makles them the laughing stock of the world? (Our leading paper dubbed the current leaders the quartet of the clueless and I can see why. )

It does not look like May is in control of her own government from here; how on earth this is supposed to result in “Britain” (however much of it will be left) being in control of anything remains to see. Meanwhile, what he said regarding most recent developments. I feel like crying every time I think of Britain these days, I truly do.

[ex_peasant441]

Okay, so because of the backfire effect I know that there is basically nothing I can say to you that will change your opinion on this, and I'm not going to try. What I can try to do is maybe start a new idea for you, not one that will change what you currently believe about what has happened but one that maybe can form the kernel of a new belief about new things that will happen in the future. So I am going to say this:

It is going to be okay. Britain and the EU are going to be friends. We are going to be great trading partners, and great allies, and have huge cultural and social interactions in every way possible. The EU will continue to be fine. The UK will continue to be fine. You don't need to cry because it is going to be okay.

If you ever are ready to find out what Brexiteers are really like and why we believe what we believe, you know where to find me and I am happy to explain to the best of my ability. But until you are ready - and I fully understand why that might not be the case - because of the backfire effect, I will leave you alone.

[rydra_wong]

I probably shouldn't start this conversation since I doubt it will end well, but why on earth are you describing Brexit as a "grotesque insanity"? Surely by now you can see that it is a perfectly civilised renegotiation of terms between friends and neighbours?

I probably shouldn't perpetuate this conversation in someone else's journal because that's going to end even less well, but:

We have a government who don't have a parliamentary majority, who are in power because of support from the DUP explicitly bought with money, who have flagrantly misled parliament (the supposed detailed "impact assessments" for 58 sectors which now turn out not to exist), who want to pass a bill which would enable them to rewrite a large number of laws without the bother of going through parliament. Please tell me where in this you see "full democratic control over the people who make our laws".

We are still in significant danger of crashing out of the EU with no deal at all in order to satisfy the wet dreams of a small group of hardliners in the Tory party. We are busy grovelling to the malignant narcissist demagogue running the United States because we're so desperate for a trade deal of some kind with somebody, anybody. And we are looking at decades of economic damage, which is going to brutalize the poorest and most vulnerable (who have already been ground into the dirt by "austerity").

Also, we're already doing things like having women who've been raped and trafficked arrested by the police on immigration charges at a sexual assault centre, because that's the attitude being embraced by the new post-Brexit Britain.

Oh, and by the way, the Leave campaign was heavily and illicitly funded by Robert Mercer and supported by Russian fake Twitter accounts. As well as the flagrant lies peddled by Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage. If you don't see grotesquery in that, where do you see it?

why on earth are you describing Brexit as a "grotesque insanity"?

Why on earth are you pretending that a large number of the British public don't see it as a "grotesque insanity"? If nothing else, you have to acknowledge that there is massive division and bitterness within Britain about this.

(For that matter, have you not noticed that an entire country is potentially going to leave the UK because of this?)

ETA: You are, obviously, free to believe what you want; I certainly can't stop you. But please don't pretend that your views are those of "we British".

[rydra_wong]

selenak, apologies if you'd rather not have me weighing in in your journal. I just, er, have some strong feelings about this topic.

[muccamukk]

I read it three times before I realised they weren't joking.

[lilacsigil]

Same. And I'm in a country that is likely to benefit from Brexit, but "grotesque insanity" is still an absolutely appropriate description.

[selenak]

No apologies necessary, I was hoping someone who actually is British would comment, as I am not and thus of course can only speak from the outside pov.

[rydra_wong]

Well, I can witness that it looks exactly the same to many of us from the inside POV ...

If peasant still wants to believe that Brexit is a great idea, that's their right, but they don't get to pretend that "we British" all feel the same way, or act like "anyone of sense" can now see that this is an jolly amicable little negotation in which everything will work out wonderfully for the UK and it'll be just as good as being in the EU only better.

[pujaemuss]

There is very little "We British" about the situation. The referendum was split 52/48, both the main parties are split 50/50 between leavers and remainers, and even amongst the two tribes, there are massive differences in opinion, with leavers ranging from no-deal Brextremists to EEC-wanters and remainers ranging from people wanting a USE to people who don't like the EU particularly but find leaving risky. About the only thing that we can agree on is that no-one's got a bloody clue what we want. So to claim "We British" seems a little high-handed.

I actually was undecided as to my vote until relatively late in the referendum, as I could see a sensible and measured case for us being better out of the EU and the EU being better for being separated from us. What actually tipped the balance towards voting Remain for me was examining the bunch of idiots who would likely be left in charge if Cameron fell. Christ, when Teresa May is literally the least worst option to lead the country, something is wrong with your leadership group. The idea of reassessing an renegotiating our position in the world and in the continent doesn't scare me in the slightest; the idea of those fools doing it terrifies me.

I mean, say what you will about Corbyn (and I occasionally do), but at least he believes in something. He stands for something. Johnson, May, Gove, et al stand for nothing more than what will keep them in power and given how wildly divergent public opinion is at the moment, it's no wonder they can't work out which populist position to try on next.

tl;dr There's no inherent problem with Brexit, just that we're doing it without any plan, with no idea of what we want out of it, no-one's got a clue what the general populace actually wants, and with leadership that's more concerned with stabbing each other in the back than doing what's best for the country.

Puja

[sovay]

Now Edgar Feuchtwanger is over 90 years old. This is so not how anyone’s life should come full circle.

I didn't know about Feutchtwanger and his family, but I was just discussing the trend of British citizens re-seeking German citizenship with my parents earlier this afternoon. They had not heard about it. It is strange to the point of ghostliness even here.

people get edited out or reduced to minor roles when in reality they were the major players. (If they don’t get villainized.

Professor Marston & The Wonder Women (2017) unfortunately seemed to suffer from a particularly unnecessary case of the latter: "Real Josette was pretty much the opposite of a Focus-on-the-Family-type arch-conservative Christian, for reasons beyond the fact that she was not a Christian."

[selenak]

Good grief. I had heard the movie took liberties (haven't watched it yet), but that's particularly insulting.


re: that trend: I first read about last year, and since then have heard of other cases, but the Feuchtwangers are the first example of people I know in rl.

[sovay]

I had heard the movie took liberties (haven't watched it yet), but that's particularly insulting.

I haven't seen the movie, either, and finding out that its antagonist was so particularly misrepresented has put something of a damper on my initial enthusiasm. I feel like if the writers had wanted an essentially fictional, conservative Christian villain, they could have dreamed one up without sticking a progressive Jewish woman's name on her.

re: that trend: I first read about last year,

Same, although my vector was the Guardian. There was a recent article in the New York Review of Books (paywalled: I can't actually read it online myself) that I think has started to boost the news here.

and since then have heard of other cases, but the Feuchtwangers are the first example of people I know in rl.

I can see that bringing it much more sharply home.

[moon_custafer]

Unfortunately, I’ve the whole movie is a case of “would have been a good film if they’d admitted it was fiction.” The Marston descendants are quite upfront about the poly, less sure about the BDSM (because that’s not the sort of thing you generally discuss with your kids and grandkids), but mostly really irritated that the movie makers never talked to them at all, because they wanted to be free to “develop their own ideas,” i.e. write a story kind of loosely based on real people.

[sovay]

The Marston descendants are quite upfront about the poly, less sure about the BDSM (because that’s not the sort of thing you generally discuss with your kids and grandkids), but mostly really irritated that the movie makers never talked to them at all, because they wanted to be free to “develop their own ideas,” i.e. write a story kind of loosely based on real people.

Well, dammit.

[edit] That is particularly aggravating because Jill Lepore did interview the surviving children for The Secret History of Wonder Woman (2014), the book which broke most of this information to the public. And which I had thought was the basis for the film, until I read not.

[edit edit] Okay, I may have just lost patience with the film's writer-director and I feel bad about it, but when she says of a story set betwen 1928 and 1947 that "Lesbian was barely an identity at the time. The word had just been created in that usage," while she may be right that the term lesbian was relatively new to mainstream consciousness at her story's start, she is utterly wrong that there were no words for women who were attracted to/loved/had sex with women before then—or that women were unable to define themselves that way without the word lesbian. See Ma Rainey's "Prove It on Me Blues." See Sholem Asch's God of Vengeance (1907), for crying out loud, where the namelessness of what Rifke and Manke have done together is part of the poignancy and part of the defiance. See that lyric of Anakreon's where he covers his total strikeout with a girl by saying she must be from Lesbos. See sapphist and bulldyke (and bulldagger) and tommy. Even if Angela Robinson's characters did not think of themselves as lesbians, it's not like they would have had no way of talking about themselves and what they did together. That's just bad research. Besides, wouldn't the issue, according to her interpretation, have been whether they could have thought of themselves as bi?

[moon_custafer]

when she says of a story set betwen 1928 and 1947 that "Lesbian was barely an identity at the time

Oh for the love of I-need-to-raise-the-ghost-of-Basil-Rathbone-so-he-can-tell-her-how-he-and-the-entire-cast-of-The Captive-were-arrested-for-obscenity-even-if-the-script-never-actually-said-the-word-lesbian....

[sovay]

I-need-to-raise-the-ghost-of-Basil-Rathbone-so-he-can-tell-her-how-he-and-the-entire-cast-of-The Captive-were-arrested-for-obscenity-even-if-the-script-never-actually-said-the-word-lesbian

DO IT DO IT DO IT

[moon_custafer]

I CAN’T I’M NOT A NECROMANCER

[sovay]

I CAN’T I’M NOT A NECROMANCER

THAT'S A LEGITIMATE OBJECTION BUT I NONETHELESS REGRET IT

[watervole]

Although I think our government will protect the rights of Europeans living in the UK after Brexit, I feel glad that people do have other options to protect them.

I have some Slovakian friends who have been here a very long time. I hope they will all be able to remain here.