Talk:Lillian Hellman

/Archive 1

Lillian Hellman's habit of lying.
There should be a section on Hellman's habit of telling lies. It is normally explained by her Marxist politics, but it went far beyond that. For example Hellman claimed that Finland was a "Fascist" country (a standard Communist lie), but she also claimed to have visited Finland (she had not). Even quite trivial things such as what Hellman claimed to have done on a particular day or what she claimed people had said to her, would be lies - and sometimes without any political purpose for the lies. As far as I know nobody has explained this habit.2.216.254.189 (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It's exactly the trivial nature of what critics call "lying" that demonstrates that much of this had to do with person/political squabbling and little of substance. Some have made a big deal over whether she joined the Hemingways for lunch or dinner and brought flowers or wine. Liar! Where substantive, I think it's covered, e.g. Julia.

== Somebody Should Add a Perspective Section = As the current article correctly notes, the Left Wing was the victim of the Red Scare of Hellman's era. However, the irony is rich because today the Left Wing is the perpetrator of another Red Scare. Where Hellman was monitored by law enforcement and the Left saw that as bad, today the Left believes it is wonderful that top officials protected one candidate (Hillary) and used a fake dossier to wiretap another (Trump). The level of moral outrage just depends upon whose ox is being gored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.216.213 (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Status Jan 2012
I've archived old discussions. They largely referred to material that had been changed long ago. When I came to this entry late in 2010, it was quite short, failed to mention most of Hellman's plays, ignored her work in Hollywood, and had many other gaps. I've tried to beef it up and at least tell the whole story in outline form. It's very easy to use one-sided sources at many points, so I've tried to be balanced, though I expect many will find that I've been too kind to Hellman. I don't think any of the disputes are as cut and dried as any one author would have us think. It would be hard to do justice to some of these disputes without rehearsing the entire history of the American left wing, McCarthyism, etc. Maybe as others come to work on this entry it will be possible to discuss specifics, not who lied but what was the nature of the dispute, who made the charges, what details matter, was something exaggerated or suppressed, what was the real issue at stake, etc. And to do so without making declarations, but by finding ways to write this entry to enlighten the uninformed reader.

I know I have failed to address the Hellman-Hammett relationship, Hellman's finances (especially while blacklisted), and the Cultural and Scientific Conference for World Peace. And the entry needs a good summary. But I've just run out of steam. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Distribution of statement/letter at HUAC hearing

 * RE: She avoided the stigma that normally attached to being a "Fifth Amendment Communist" because Rauh, as soon as it was on record with the Committee, distributed to the press copies of a statement she had earlier sent to the HUAC about her testimony, "written not to persuade the Committee," writes one historian, "but to shape press coverage."

Can someone help with the details so we can write this more clearly? Hellman wrote the statement on Sunday May 19, two days before the hearing. According to the NY Times she sent it on Monday -- that would be May 20 -- to John S. Wood, who chaired HUAC. The hearing was on Tuesday.

At the hearing, Wood acknowledges the letter but says the witness is not allowed to dictate terms to the Committee. The Committee then poses a question Hellman doesn't want to answer. She pleads the fifth and says she stands by what she wrote in her letter. Then Rauh distributes the letter.

What is Rauh waiting for? I think he is waiting to see if the Committee will insist on posing questions that will force Hellman to take the fifth. Once she does, he distributes the copies.

I don't think he is waiting for the letter to be "on record" or, as an earlier version had it "upon its placement on the public record". (I'm not sure what the "public record" in that means in any case.) The text isn't entered into the record as far as I can tell, and I see no reason Rauh has to wait for either Wood or Hellman to mention the letter. Neither seems to have quoted it. Rauh could have distributed the letter in advance, except that doing so would have guaranteed that the Committee would reject what Hellman offered in the letter. (They were almost certain to reject her proposal in any case, but why guarantee the rejection?)

What triggers Rauh's release of copies to the press, I think, isn't anything as official as something going on the record. It's the fact that the Committee forces Hellman to plead the fifth, and the moment she does it's Rauh's job to show the press how very willing she was to testify....about certain things only and on her own terms.

Sorry to be so long-winded. It's all very dramatic but a little obscure, at least to me. Thx. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I've reviewed the sources,and I'll be rewriting this section. BTW, I wrote the section originally, so I'm re-writing my own stuff. Letter did go on the record, as it happens, but Rauh acts as soon as she is done testifying, not based on any other trigger. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Possible source
Hellman's career is discussed in chapter 12 of Paul Johnson's 1988 Intellectuals. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Meyer Levin Controversy Unmentioned
The article does not mention the role of Meyer Levin in the "Diary of Anne Frank," nor of Lillian Hellman's apparent participation in plagery and theft of his version of the play. He believed that her motive was to de-Judaize the story, and to remove its Zionist message. Levin believed that she actually wrote the stage play based on his version, and that the purported authors were fronts.

The article also appears to gloss over Hellman's slavish devotion to the "Motherland," her lifelong aversion to Jewish interests, and the theft of "Julia."


 * NOTE: The comment above was posted by an anonymous user from IP 70.181.108.85, who then cut and pasted a comment of mine from above and moved it to this position so his/her comment would appear to have my signature. I've never seen anything so dishonest on WP before. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * эта ложь как и вся статья,к чему здесь весь этот политический бред про СССР,в статье про Лилиан Хеллман,нигде и никакие "сталинские" боевики не били this lie, like the whole article, why is there all this political nonsense about the USSR, in the article about Lilian Hellman, nowhere and no "Stalinist" militants hit the Republicans in the rear, Stalin supported the Spanish Republic until the end of the war and never betrayed it, unlike Western countries like France and Britain, why are there stories about great terror or some kind of anti-Semitism and if you already mention the Molotov Pact bentrop, then mention the fact that the USSR before him, especially in 38-39 years after the Munich agreement, tried to create an international coalition against the Third Reich, but the allies refused to do thishttps://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/istoriya-provala-anglo-franko-sovetskiy-alyans-kotorogo-ne-bylo-i-neopublikovannaya-belaya-kniga-britanskogo-pravitelstva-1939-1940-gg 37.54.230.242 (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, the reference to the unsubstantiated allegations of the anti-communist and conservative Allan Rayskind finally proves the bias of the authors of the article, as well as the delusional passages about "dictatorial" and "aggressive" methods of recruiting in the screenwriters guild, which actually did not exist, just as she did not accuse Bankhead of not helping the Spanish refugees, since this story even has weak evidence, she could say that this could not be or it was somehow not the way Bankhead described it, but no more than that, and she was not a fanatical Stalinist, although she was a communist and was critical of Trotsky and how anti-communists use it for their own purposesbut one should not confuse criticism of the USSR and the idea of containment of communism, which she clearly did not like, but she could have discussed the USSR from a critical position 37.54.230.242 (talk) 20:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Praised by whom?
My lede copy has attracted a 'by whom' tag. Your question is answered fully in the main article, where it quotes Pulitzer Prizewinner Murray Kempton in praise of Hellman. I suggest the tag could be removed. Valetude (talk) 10:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In the absence of any objections, I have now removed the tag. Valetude (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lillian Hellman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050917224728/http://video.pbs.org:8080/ramgen/wnet/ammasters/clips/hellman-lo.rm?altplay=hellman-lo.rm to http://video.pbs.org:8080/ramgen/wnet/ammasters/clips/hellman-lo.rm?altplay=hellman-lo.rm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph
Is really necessary to allocate this description where it is now? """Although she continued to work on Broadway in the 1950s, her blacklisting by the American film industry caused a drop in her income. Many praised Hellman for refusing to answer questions by HUAC, but others believed, despite her denial, that she had belonged to the Communist Party.""" I am rather referring to the section where the information is now placed, not to its content which is I think is correct. Because of the insertion of this text, the reading of the first paragraph sounds without connection with the second. Just my opinion as a reader. 2804:18:5034:C939:2921:B860:2761:95D7 (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)