logo
From Crime Scenes to Hollywood Stars, Weegee Snapped Them All

From Crime Scenes to Hollywood Stars, Weegee Snapped Them All

New York Times06-02-2025

How did the photographer Arthur Fellig, better known as Weegee, go from hard-boiled shots of New York murder victims, criminal arrests and tenement fires during the 1930s and '40s — classic images that have never been equaled — to the cheesy distorted portraits of Hollywood celebrities that engaged him for the last 20 years of his life?
That question is posed, if not persuasively answered, by 'Weegee: Society of the Spectacle,' a career-spanning retrospective that runs through May 5 at the International Center of Photography, which owns Weegee's archive. Like your family's ugly knickknacks that are sequestered in the attic, the lesser-known photographs of Weegee, from the late 1940s until his death in 1968, have been mostly ignored by critics as an embarrassment. This is a rare chance to view the work and make a judgment.
Arguing a revisionist case for the disparaged late output of a major artist is a popular endeavor. While the effort has partially succeeded for Pablo Picasso, the verdicts on the decline of Francis Picabia, Robert Frank, Giorgio de Chirico and Willem de Kooning have not, at least to my mind, been reversed. Nor will this show change most opinions about Weegee.
It is the contention of the curator, Clément Chéroux, director of the Fondation Henri Cartier-Bresson, which organized the exhibition with the ICP, that Weegee — both during his glory years in New York and then, in a completely different body of work that began in Hollywood in 1947, and continued after his return to New York in 1952 — consistently portrayed the urban spectacle. To support that theory, Chéroux enlists the French critic Guy Debord, whose book, 'The Society of the Spectacle,' published in 1967, argued that in the advanced stages of capitalism, a world dominated by consumer commodities is perceived as images representing those commodities — or, in a word, as spectacle.
Many of Weegee's most powerful pictures focus on spectators. Although famously quick to arrive at the scene of the disaster (a police radio tipped him off with the preternatural accuracy of an Ouija board, probably the source of his nickname), he inevitably got there after the homicide had occurred or the car had crashed. What was happening in the decisive moment was the reaction. By turning his camera on the spectators, not the victim, he captured something vital, not dead.
The emotions of the onlookers often appeared incongruous, because they found violent death entertaining. In 'Their First Murder,' one of his greatest photographs, Weegee portrayed a bunch of kids craning their necks, curious and grinning, while behind them, in the center of the frame but relatively inconspicuous, a woman's face is contorted in grief. She was the aunt of the ill-fated small-time mobster, whose body we don't see.
The mixture of glee and sorrow in that crowd mirrors Weegee's own contradictory sentiments. An immigrant from Ukraine, he sided with the hard-pressed people, many of them foreign-born, who inhabited his stomping grounds in Little Italy and the Lower East Side. Understandably, he especially identified with rubberneckers: the line of gawkers behind a parapet as the police examined a corpse on the roof of a neighboring building; the cop, in smiling conversation, who is oblivious to the bloodstained body on the sidewalk nearby; the people peering out their windows and standing on their fire escapes to gaze at a slain man sprawled in a cafe doorway.
He sided with the downtrodden, but with a smirk, not a sob. The picture Weegee called his favorite underscores that. At his request, an assistant found a disheveled, drunken woman on the Bowery and brought her outside the Metropolitan Opera on opening night. When two elegant ladies in white furs and tiaras approached the entrance, Weegee's inebriated surrogate brayed with derision from the sideline. He fired the flash and pressed the shutter. He called the picture 'The Critic.'
Weegee's smart-aleck attitude was his armor. Bereavement discomfited him. He initially attached the brutal title 'Roast' to a photograph of two anguished women watching a Brooklyn house fire that is incinerating their family members. But when he included it in his book 'Naked City,' the title had morphed into 'I Cried When I Took This Picture.' The dual titles reflect the split nature of an artist whose sympathy is inextricably alloyed with mockery. In Weegee's world, life is nasty, brutish and short. Tears are wasted.
Like Dorothea Lange and other Farm Security Administration photographers of the Great Depression, Weegee reveled in ironic wordplay. His was even more caustic. In 1943, he captured high-pressure fire truck hoses drenching a burning building, the headquarters of the American Kitchen Products Company, which is embellished with a painted slogan for bouillon cubes: 'Simply Add Boiling Water.' In another of his images (included in the catalog but not the show), the body of a murdered man lies at the entrance of a Little Italy cafe, beneath a plate-glass window that advertises Camel cigarettes: '5 Extra Smokes Per Pack.'
Neither the cleverness of approach nor the compassion for the underdog are to be found in the post-World War II work that he described as 'caricatures,' 'distortions' or 'creative photography.' He made these pictures using different methods: heating the negatives with boiling water or flame, inserting curved or wavy glass between the enlarger and the printing paper, or superimposing multiple exposures on the same sheet.
Surrealist and Dada photographers had similarly manipulated negatives and prints, even melting emulsions to suggest deliquescing bodies. But for Weegee, the technique seemed to serve no purpose other than buffoonery — turning President Kennedy's teeth into a palisade fence or Andy Warhol's face into a blurry montage akin to a Francis Bacon portrait. Although it is no wonder that he had lost the energy to race to the latest fire or murder from his combined apartment and studio in New York (conveniently located opposite police headquarters), he needed to come up with a worthy substitute. He didn't.
Debord argued that ordinary people who lead alienated, fragmented existences and never feel truly alive deify celebrities as paragons of consumption and power. Weegee's famous people are the opposite: familiar faces shattered into shards or stretched like taffy. Much closer to Debord's ideal is a Warhol silk-screen painting of Marilyn, Liz or Jackie; they convey the mass allure of celebrity with an acuity and verve that Weegee's caricatures never approached (although his New York pictures of auto accidents and fires anticipated Warhol's 'Death and Disaster' series).
Weegee, at his best, in his New York heyday, exulted in the excitement of the city, where both the highs and the lows are thrilling. Whether he portrays people in seemingly infinite crowds at the Coney Island beach and Times Square rallies, or in smaller groups eyeballing a disaster or a corpse, they are bound together in urban communion.
The work Weegee made before his distortions doesn't support Debord's theory, it refutes it. As spectators, his subjects connect to other spectators, and, like the photographer, they pulse with life. The puerile distortions that lured him down a dead-end road remain a mystery, as does how such a talented man took such a wrong turn.
Weegee: Society of the Spectacle
Through May 5, International Center of Photography, 84 Ludlow Street, Manhattan; 212 857-000, icp.org.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The Real Message Behind Les Misérables
The Real Message Behind Les Misérables

Yahoo

time25 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

The Real Message Behind Les Misérables

The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. On February 7, the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts suffered a presidential coup. Donald Trump filled its board of trustees with loyalists and declared himself its 'amazing Chairman.' On June 11, he is set to celebrate the dawn of what he has called a 'Golden Age in Arts and Culture' by attending a Kennedy Center performance of one of his favorite musicals, the globally popular adaptation of Victor Hugo's epic novel Les Misérables. Several cast members plan to boycott the opening. Perhaps they find it strange or even disconcerting that Trump is a big fan of Les Mis. Having declared of his Kennedy Center, 'It's not going to be woke,' why would he enjoy a tale in which the official victimization of society's underdogs is contrasted with the civilizing power of love, charity, and forgiveness? The term misérables can translate roughly to 'the wretched,' 'the dirt poor,' or even 'the scum of the Earth.' The frequent Trump epithet losers would be a suitably pejorative modern equivalent. This despised underclass is pitted against a punitive regime that honors bullies, sycophants, and plutocrats. They are not the sort of people who might expect compassion and understanding from the current administration. I find the gaudy, mass-market musical's appeal to Trump ironic but not surprising. Since it premiered on London's West End in 1985, the show, with its rousing anthems and its tear-jerking tale of victory over oppression, has thrilled more than 100 million people. We know that Trump has a weakness for bombastic 1980s musicals, and Les Mis is certainly that. Having spent four years writing a biography of Hugo, I can't help but find it a sweetened, antiseptic version of his weird, digressive underworld of moral and literal sewers. The original book would surely bamboozle and exasperate Trump if he ever undertook the journey through its 1,500 pages. [Read: America now has a minister of culture] The author himself wouldn't seem to hold much appeal for the leader of the MAGA movement. The president mentioned Hugo in 2018 at a White House dinner for Emmanuel Macron and the French delegation: 'This is the divine flame, which Victor Hugo wrote that 'evil can never wholly extinguish,' and which 'good can make to glow with splendor.'' Trump was referring to the shared military glories of France and the United States from the American Revolution through the Second World War. In fact, the words were taken from a description of the central character of Les Misérables, destitute following his conviction for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his sister's starving children. The narrator wonders whether Jean Valjean's soul has been destroyed, or whether an immortal 'spark' (not 'flame') has survived his dehumanization by a vindictive justice system. When Les Misérables was published in 1862, Hugo was an outcast. The founder of two distinct periods of Romanticism, he was the world's most famous living writer and an international symbol of freedom and democracy. By then, at the age of 60, he had spent 10 years in exile after opposing the coup d'état led by Napoleon Bonaparte's nephew, Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte, the self-crowned emperor of France who reigned as Napoleon III from 1852 to 1870. Hugo, as a refugee in the Channel Islands, was an embarrassment to the British government. The intelligence services of France and the United Kingdom considered him a socialist menace. Spies reported his dealings with suspected immigrant terrorists. His diatribe against 'Napoléon le Petit' was smuggled across the English Channel in walking sticks, sardine tins, and women's underwear. Miniature copies were concealed in souvenir plaster busts of Napoleon III. The exiled poet was criticized for his arrogant attempts to influence British and American foreign policy. He was mocked for his poor English and his wild appearance, as he recalled in his notebooks: 'To the English, I am shoking, excentric and improper'; 'I oppose the death penalty, which is not respectable'; 'I am an exile, which is repellent, and on the losing side, which is infamous.' I would venture to say that Hugo would not be made welcome in the Oval Office today: 'I look like a workman,' he wrote, and 'I fail to wear my tie in the correct fashion.' Les Misérables is one of the last universally read masterpieces in Western literature. In its own day, it was as popular as its musical adaptation would be in the next century. In France, it was bought even by people who had never learned to read. It was devoured by soldiers in the trenches of the American Civil War. Like all great works of art, it has a mind and momentum of its own. [Read: The fame of Victor Hugo] This ostensibly simple tale contains labyrinthine complexities and contradictions. Hugo had been a monarchist in his youth and then became a moderate liberal. At the time of the 1832 revolt, which takes up almost one-fifth of Les Misérables, he was a property-owning family man firmly opposed to violent protest. 'We should not allow barbarians to bespatter our flag with red,' he wrote in his diary. The barricade at the heart of the novel and the musical is actually a scene from the savagely repressed uprising of June 1848. Hugo had just been elected to the National Assembly as a right-wing moderate. When the rioting broke out, he fought with the forces of law and order against the insurgents, whom he considered innocent but misguided. These were the starving unemployed of the Paris slums, the malodorous and degraded masses that polite society called 'les misérables.' He took prisoners and was directly responsible for deaths and deportations. Tormented over his culpability, he had a crise de conscience and joined the socialist opposition to the dictatorship of Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte. Hugo became the mascot and inspiration of liberation movements in Greece and Italy and throughout Central and South America, so it is fitting that the musical's opening and concluding song, 'Do You Hear the People Sing?' has been chanted in this century by antigovernment protesters in China, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and Belarus. Less obviously appropriate is the adoption of Les Mis by Trump and the MAGA movement. No artistic genre is the exclusive property of one faction. As the Trump administration demonstrates, forms of moral discourse evolved by left-wing thinkers can serve the purposes of right-wing ideologues. The novel and the musical both have roots in popular 19th-century entertainment—vaudevilles, comic operas, and newspaper serials. Both were sneered at by middle-class reviewers and adored by the public. The MAGA reading of Les Misérables is just the latest example of its populist appeal. It also typifies the volatile nature of political buzzwords. [Read: Trump's Kennedy Center debut: 'Les Mis' and six-figure checks] Misérables was an insult that French insurgents picked up and brandished as a banner. By the same process, after Hillary Clinton called Trump's supporters 'deplorables' during the 2016 election campaign, her dismissive term inspired the digital backdrop of a Trump rally in Miami: Under the words les deplorables, a doctored image from the musical showed a crowd storming a barricade, waving the French Tricolor and the Stars and Stripes. That evening, the crowd sang a MAGA version of 'Do You Hear the People Sing?' In 2025, the U.S. Army Chorus sang this appropriated anthem of popular revolt at the White House Governors Ball. Hugo would likely have been repelled and fascinated by Trump's demagoguery, his rambling mendacity, his grammatically illogical but easy-to-follow oratory. The writer might have been reminded of Napoleon III, who hovers in the background of the novel as a sinister, clownish figure. Two significant differences are that Napoleon III had a long-standing interest in justice, and that he was never envious of Hugo's fame. After granting him and his fellow outcasts amnesty in 1859, Napoleon III lamented the great man's decision to remain in exile. In 1862, he allowed Les Misérables to be advertised and sold in France, leading his government to review its penal and industrial legislation and to concern itself with the exploitation of women and orphans, as well as the education of the poor. Trump's attacks on universities, the arts, and free expression increase the likelihood that any future American equivalent of Les Misérables will also have to be written in exile. But none of this knotty history need spoil Chairman Trump's triumph when he sits in the royal box at the Kennedy Center and hears the people sing for his pleasure. Article originally published at The Atlantic

Coco Gauff shows off ‘miniature' French Open trophy awarded thanks to Roland Garros rule
Coco Gauff shows off ‘miniature' French Open trophy awarded thanks to Roland Garros rule

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Coco Gauff shows off ‘miniature' French Open trophy awarded thanks to Roland Garros rule

French Open champion Coco Gauff is bringing grand slam silverware back home from Roland Garros - but the trophy in question isn't the same one she collected on Court Philippe-Chatrier on Saturday. Gauff, 21, secured her her second grand slam title as she battled from behind to win a dramatic three-set final against the World No 1 Aryna Sabalenka, mastering difficult conditions to win her first Roland Garros. Advertisement Gauff's victory came three years after she was thrashed 6-1 6-3 by Iga Swiatek in the 2022 French Open final, a defeat that left an 18-year-old Gauff in tears during the trophy ceremony. This time, she was able to grit through to get her hands on the coveted Coupe Suzanne Lenglen, beaming with pride as the American national anthem played in Paris. However, her time with the trophy was somewhat short-lived, with Gauff revealing on her flight that the prize never made it out of the French capital. Instead, she is given a 'mini replica' of the trophy to keep, the size of which Gauff demonstrates is hardly bigger than a French water bottle. Coco Gauff shows off her minature French Open trophy on a private jet (Coco Gauff/TikTok) 'It's the memories that matter the most,' Gauff said as she chuckled at the size of her trophy. Advertisement Gauff also confirmed that the reason for the swap in silverware is down to the fact the full-sized trophy 'stays with the tournament'. The World No 2 battled to a 6-7 (7-5) 6-2 6-4 win over Sabalenka to lift her first grand slam since triumphing at the US Open in 2023, where she also beat the Belarusian. It was the first of two epic finals at Roland Garros, with Carlos Alcaraz and Jannik Sinner following it up with their own five-set classic in what was the second longest grand slam final of all time - clocking in at five hours and 29 minutes.

What Victor Hugo Would Make of Trump
What Victor Hugo Would Make of Trump

Atlantic

time3 hours ago

  • Atlantic

What Victor Hugo Would Make of Trump

On February 7, the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts suffered a presidential coup. Donald Trump filled its board of trustees with loyalists and declared himself its 'amazing Chairman.' On June 11, he is set to celebrate the dawn of what he has called a 'Golden Age in Arts and Culture' by attending a Kennedy Center performance of one of his favorite musicals, the globally popular adaptation of Victor Hugo's epic novel Les Misérables. Several cast members plan to boycott the opening. Perhaps they find it strange or even disconcerting that Trump is a big fan of Les Mis. Having declared of his Kennedy Center, 'It's not going to be woke,' why would he enjoy a tale in which the official victimization of society's underdogs is contrasted with the civilizing power of love, charity, and forgiveness? The term misérables can translate roughly to 'the wretched,' 'the dirt poor,' or even 'the scum of the Earth.' The frequent Trump epithet losers would be a suitably pejorative modern equivalent. This despised underclass is pitted against a punitive regime that honors bullies, sycophants, and plutocrats. They are not the sort of people who might expect compassion and understanding from the current administration. I find the gaudy, mass-market musical's appeal to Trump ironic but not surprising. Since it premiered on London's West End in 1985, the show, with its rousing anthems and its tear-jerking tale of victory over oppression, has thrilled more than 100 million people. We know that Trump has a weakness for bombastic 1980s musicals, and Les Mis is certainly that. Having spent four years writing a biography of Hugo, I can't help but find it a sweetened, antiseptic version of his weird, digressive underworld of moral and literal sewers. The original book would surely bamboozle and exasperate Trump if he ever undertook the journey through its 1,500 pages. The author himself wouldn't seem to hold much appeal for the leader of the MAGA movement. The president mentioned Hugo in 2018 at a White House dinner for Emmanuel Macron and the French delegation: 'This is the divine flame, which Victor Hugo wrote that 'evil can never wholly extinguish,' and which 'good can make to glow with splendor.'' Trump was referring to the shared military glories of France and the United States from the American Revolution through the Second World War. In fact, the words were taken from a description of the central character of Les Misérables, destitute following his conviction for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his sister's starving children. The narrator wonders whether Jean Valjean's soul has been destroyed, or whether an immortal 'spark' (not 'flame') has survived his dehumanization by a vindictive justice system. When Les Misérables was published in 1862, Hugo was an outcast. The founder of two distinct periods of Romanticism, he was the world's most famous living writer and an international symbol of freedom and democracy. By then, at the age of 60, he had spent 10 years in exile after opposing the coup d'état led by Napoleon Bonaparte's nephew, Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte, the self-crowned emperor of France who reigned as Napoleon III from 1852 to 1870. Hugo, as a refugee in the Channel Islands, was an embarrassment to the British government. The intelligence services of France and the United Kingdom considered him a socialist menace. Spies reported his dealings with suspected immigrant terrorists. His diatribe against ' Napoléon le Petit ' was smuggled across the English Channel in walking sticks, sardine tins, and women's underwear. Miniature copies were concealed in souvenir plaster busts of Napoleon III. The exiled poet was criticized for his arrogant attempts to influence British and American foreign policy. He was mocked for his poor English and his wild appearance, as he recalled in his notebooks: 'To the English, I am shoking, excentric and improper '; 'I oppose the death penalty, which is not respectable'; 'I am an exile, which is repellent, and on the losing side, which is infamous.' I would venture to say that Hugo would not be made welcome in the Oval Office today: 'I look like a workman,' he wrote, and 'I fail to wear my tie in the correct fashion.' Les Misérables is one of the last universally read masterpieces in Western literature. In its own day, it was as popular as its musical adaptation would be in the next century. In France, it was bought even by people who had never learned to read. It was devoured by soldiers in the trenches of the American Civil War. Like all great works of art, it has a mind and momentum of its own. This ostensibly simple tale contains labyrinthine complexities and contradictions. Hugo had been a monarchist in his youth and then became a moderate liberal. At the time of the 1832 revolt, which takes up almost one-fifth of Les Misérables, he was a property-owning family man firmly opposed to violent protest. 'We should not allow barbarians to bespatter our flag with red,' he wrote in his diary. The barricade at the heart of the novel and the musical is actually a scene from the savagely repressed uprising of June 1848. Hugo had just been elected to the National Assembly as a right-wing moderate. When the rioting broke out, he fought with the forces of law and order against the insurgents, whom he considered innocent but misguided. These were the starving unemployed of the Paris slums, the malodorous and degraded masses that polite society called ' les misérables.' He took prisoners and was directly responsible for deaths and deportations. Tormented over his culpability, he had a crise de conscience and joined the socialist opposition to the dictatorship of Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte. Hugo became the mascot and inspiration of liberation movements in Greece and Italy and throughout Central and South America, so it is fitting that the musical's opening and concluding song, 'Do You Hear the People Sing?' has been chanted in this century by antigovernment protesters in China, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and Belarus. Less obviously appropriate is the adoption of Les Mis by Trump and the MAGA movement. No artistic genre is the exclusive property of one faction. As the Trump administration demonstrates, forms of moral discourse evolved by left-wing thinkers can serve the purposes of right-wing ideologues. The novel and the musical both have roots in popular 19th-century entertainment—vaudevilles, comic operas, and newspaper serials. Both were sneered at by middle-class reviewers and adored by the public. The MAGA reading of Les Misérables is just the latest example of its populist appeal. It also typifies the volatile nature of political buzzwords. Misérables was an insult that French insurgents picked up and brandished as a banner. By the same process, after Hillary Clinton called Trump's supporters 'deplorables' during the 2016 election campaign, her dismissive term inspired the digital backdrop of a Trump rally in Miami: Under the words les deplorables, a doctored image from the musical showed a crowd storming a barricade, waving the French Tricolor and the Stars and Stripes. That evening, the crowd sang a MAGA version of 'Do You Hear the People Sing?' In 2025, the U.S. Army Chorus sang this appropriated anthem of popular revolt at the White House Governors Ball. Hugo would likely have been repelled and fascinated by Trump's demagoguery, his rambling mendacity, his grammatically illogical but easy-to-follow oratory. The writer might have been reminded of Napoleon III, who hovers in the background of the novel as a sinister, clownish figure. Two significant differences are that Napoleon III had a long-standing interest in justice, and that he was never envious of Hugo's fame. After granting him and his fellow outcasts amnesty in 1859, Napoleon III lamented the great man's decision to remain in exile. In 1862, he allowed Les Misérables to be advertised and sold in France, leading his government to review its penal and industrial legislation and to concern itself with the exploitation of women and orphans, as well as the education of the poor. Trump's attacks on universities, the arts, and free expression increase the likelihood that any future American equivalent of Les Misérables will also have to be written in exile. But none of this knotty history need spoil Chairman Trump's triumph when he sits in the royal box at the Kennedy Center and hears the people sing for his pleasure.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store