Meanwhile, as Ein Verlorenes Berlin is touring Europeannfestivals, which are often attended by the curators of otherninternational festivals (New York, Filmex in Los Angeles,nSydney, etc.), we are often asked whether there will be annEnglish version of our film. In reply, we explain that we wouldnlike not to translate the German film with either voice-overnEnglish speakers or subtitles—to cite two conventionalnmethods—but to compose a new soundtrack wholly innEnglish. Good idea, they reply. Here in America the directorsnof the Jewish Film Festival would like to show it with an Englishnsoundtrack; Educational Television, as well as the MargaretnMead Film Festival at the Museum of Natural History, havendecided that they cannot make a decision for acceptance onnthe German version alone.nHave you applied to redo it in English? everyone asks. Yes,nwe reply. Don’t you have government organizations innAmerica that support such things? Of course we do. Have younapplied to them? Yes, but we were not successful. Why not?nThe NEH complained that we did not have a board of academicnadvisors under whose close supervision we would work, whonwould be paid off for their involvement with us. To annAmerican, this answer indicates only that academics haventaken over the Humanities Endowment, writing self-employment,nif not featherbedding, into its granting procedures. To anEuropean, this NEH policy indicates something more, andnmore ominous—^that this Federal cultural agency epitomizesnthe communist way of doing such things and, beyond that,nindicates how closely America resembles the Soviet Union!nIn short, the NEH has politicized our initially nonpoliticalnfilm, wholly on its own initiative. As Ein Verlorenes Berlinntours Europe, this story of its funding (or lack of it) will benImpeniliticenliiL- l; Mircl.s ()l’_|()Mi’|iliini- lliThsl.nspokt-n on January J’S. lyw. wciv: ”Ic-llnmyfricntMcloiKit rqx’nt. TIKII I loii-liliiinlfinlicTtiily—low Jiiil lile.” RiMtliTs ol’n(hi- new hiojjraphy orik-rbM h> I.linornLiiigt-T (Jtisc/iMiif llcrhsl: IhcSliirySIX’n(.’olihl.W-ivr’Icll: Mkintic I.illle. IJrimri:nlioslon) will luivf u .slriiig^li.- lr Inj; lo lii ,inni(.”inlng lo tin- liniil iriiiriitu’i’ ol’lliisnagitprop novi-list. raUiial k-niinisl. andniniiiTali- fellow lrai.-li-r.n”/ liiiK- lifi'”-‘ Pi-iiwps thi.s ivti-rs lo iliideepnloM- lor lilf “>lii-1- inci’il ikiring ihfn.Stalinist purge trials: “If’llicTe is again unwiili’spreail growing clas.s ililfi-rentialionnand opprc-.ssion. it is far worsi- lor ini- tonlook at than the killing ol’any do/en ornc-VL-n lit’ty men. old h(il.shciks or whatnot.”nTo “lilc” that did not resi-inhli- tin-n?f< otablesnstilti’il ideoiogieal iharadf slu- ofl’end innlKT”pnik’tanair”lielioii.\i-danptcirliar l(nt. Algtr Hiss. liowtAir. tloi-snSL-i-ni to hai- heneliled froni .Ms. I li-rbstsnst-liitivi- lovi-of lili-. .fti-rall. IK-rlrst (anonetime Cl’l s. memlur who ielt hiilnnever ik’noiiiiceil the Part) ) protectednMiss h lying to IIK- I’I!! ahout what .shenknew of the ‘Karl” intrigues. (l.anger. anradical leftist herself, was di.sturhed toniliscoei” thai her “saerosntict ersion ofnthe” wa.s demolished liy thenim|ilications < )l’l lerbst s ci)rresp •nnnmaking a decisive contribution to the current debate for thenmind of Western Europe. On one side is the American position,nwhich advises Western Europe to side with us, because we arendifferent from the Russians and can protect you fromncommunism only if you let us put our armaments on yournlands. On the other side is the essentially anti-Americannposition that says Western Europe should remain neutral andnforbid American armaments, because the U.S. and U.S.S.R.nfundamentally resemble each other. It appears that thenNational Endowment for the Humanities, notwithstanding itsnmilitant conservative rhetoric, provides ammunition for thenlatter position. We would agree that, in this context, the NEHnwas objectively Com-Symp.nAt the Endowments last fall was circulated an “AdministrativenDirective” outlining a “Personnel Security Program” thatnrequires the Endowments to employ “only those personsnwhose employment is found to be clearly consistent withnnational security interests” which it defines as “the protectionnand preservation of the military, economic, and productivenstrength of the United States, including the security of thengovernment in domestic and foreign aflfairs, against espionage,nsabotage, and subversion and any other Ulegal acts designatednto weaken or destroy the United States.” There is no questionnabout it—by these criteria, in order to protect America and thenAmerican way, it is time to flush out the NEH.n—Richard KostelanetznMr. Kostelanetz is at present completing a book on literaryngranting in America He worked in Berlin initially as a guestnoftheDAAD Kunstlerprogrammnthing incriminating.)n”IAIIV mill life”? ‘(.ove” might refer ton1 lerbst’.s freewheeling si-x life, her faileilnmarriage, or her lesbianism—or perhajisnjiisi to sexual grjlifiialion in general.n•7.//c'”conjuiictivel> linki-il to “love” i.snmore iliflicult to constriti’. I’ossibly this isnan ironic reference to I lerlwl’s only bab.nwhom she loved to death before it couldnbe born—^t woman clearb aheail of herntime. She also encouraged her sister tonfollow lu-r lead and abort her child. (‘lliatnabortion, unlike her ow n, deal) to thenmother what it ilealt lo tin- child.)n”/(‘// my friemls”-‘ Like the hare in thenTable. I called many pec >ple “friend”nlor a time, but none—including llerbst’snlesbian lover—lasted. .Most of her relationshipsnended in malice atul mutualnrecrimination. “I da not rcficiil”? least, neeils no gloss.nJanuary 1985n