Talk:Vanessa Redgrave

Julia
The article intro refers to the film Julia as a "holocaust drama". It is no such thing, and only loosely and peripherally touches on Nazi persecution of Jews before and during World War 2. It is certainly not the main thrust of the film. 86.182.173.8 (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agreed with this comment. Also in regards to this film, I saw the bomb incident needed citation. As I was looking for one, I found a lot of additional articles that give a fuller context to the whole controversy. I noticed this controversy was addressed in the section about the film Julia as well as in the political activism section, so I left the content that pertains directly to the summary of the controversy and its possible effect on Redgrave's career in the former, and moved the rest to the latter. I'm not sure, however, if Callahan's claim that this did effect Redgrave's career is provable, in which case I would suggest moving the whole thing to the political activism section and have it all be addressed in one place, including Callahan's claim that it affected Redgrave's career. Darren.enlight (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, Valenciano and Burrobert, I'm tagging you because I saw you were working on this same section as I was when I made my pervious comment on this talk page. Before anything else, I would like to ask if maybe we can come to a consensus that, since what Callahan wrote about Redgrave's career has a speculative nature, that the whole political speech and what surrounds it can be moved just to the political activity part, unifying the two bits of text on Redgrave's page currently addressing the incident, so there are no redundancies or missing parts in either? Darren.enlight (talk) 00:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes that is a good point. The issue should be mentioned at both points as it is relevant to both. However, we should avoid repetition as much as possible. Are you able to propose and post a solution here for discussion? Include the sources you mentioned. Burrobert (talk) 01:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Burrobert Yes, I was thinking maybe a small mention in the career section with a referral to see more details about the incident in the political activism section, and lay out the details there, so everything is both coherent and contextual? What do you think? Darren.enlight (talk) 02:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes that is fine with me. I just want to clarify about my reasons for removing some of your text:
 * Adding a description of the PLO using an article that does not mention Redgrave is synthesis. The ADL’s view on the PLO would be relevant to the PLO and ADL’s page. What you need is an article which says something like “ ‘’The Palestinian’’ is a film about the PLO, which was defined at the time by Israel as a terrorist organization responsible for the murder of thousands of civilians”.
 * I removed a few things that were not relevant to Redgrave - Workers League, JDL members attacking nazi’s, the ADL’s description of the PLO (unless there is an article which links these).
 * Burrobert (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Redgrave's acceptance speech was short. Should we include more of it? The following is from a Times of Israel article. "In the last few weeks you have stood firm and you have refused to be intimidated by the threat of a small bunch of Zionist hoodlums, whose behavior is an insult to the stature of Jews all over the world, and to their great and heroic record of struggle against fascism and oppression". She concluded the speech by pledging "to fight anti-Semitism and fascism for as long as I live". A few years ago she said "I didn’t realize pledging to fight anti-Semitism and fascism was controversial. I’m learning that it is". Burrobert (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, Burrobert! Sorry, I had to go to sleep, so I didn't see your reply earlier. Also, feel free to tag me so I get notified! As for the text you removed, very interesting, thank you for sharing your reasoning! OK, I'll share mine, too? The Workers League used Redgrave's name, but it turned out she wasn't involved, so I thought that was relevant. But it's true that that's the kind of clarification added just in case anyone claims she was involved, and I don't know how many people would. So yeah, seems OK to remove that. The JDL burning Redgrave's likeness was a bit I removed because while The Hollywood Reporter said it happened at the Oscars, JPost said THR got the timeline wrong, and that that happened later. ("While The Hollywood Reporter’s article this week said Redgrave’s “comments were directed at extremists in the Jewish Defense League, who had not only burned her in effigy but had offered a bounty to have her killed. There was even a firebombing at one of the cinemas showing the documentary” – those events occurred well after her Oscar’s speech took place").The JDL and Nazis' confrontation I thought was relevant because it would mean that outside the ceremony were extremists, some were Jewish, some were antisemitic, and while Redgrave stood on stage and pledged to fight antisemitism, she only referred to the Jewish extremists in her speech (and did so in a manner that required her to later clarify that she was referring just to JDL, not all Zionists), which is probably a part of why Jews who weren't supportive of the JDL still found her remarks troublesome, like Paddy Chayefsky, who said he couldn't live with himself if he didn't respond. I thought this was important to show the context in which the Jewish community overall would have taken her remarks. Same for the PLO, I thought explaining that the PLO had targeted and murdered not only Israelis, but also other Jews (such as Leon Klinghoffer, an elderly, disabled American Jew murdered by the PLO), is an important context to understand why Jews beyond the JDL found the movie objectionable. The ADL article would be a reflection of how Jews viewed the PLO. I also found this article that mentions the PLO's reputation for terrorism and extremism. What do you think? Darren.enlight (talk) 10:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't access your link Darren. The "content is not available in your area". Can you summarise the text?
 * Regarding the effect of Redgrave's speech, the Daily Telegraph has this to say: "It’s clear now that she was referring to the extremists of the Jewish Defense League who had offered a bounty to have her killed. Yet in the context of her support for the PLO, this was a spectacularly ill-chosen phrase, one that made it possible for Redgrave’s detractors to imply that she meant the whole state of Israel, and thus damn her as an anti-Semite for years to come". It seems to explain why it aroused anger amongst the Jewish community while also clarifying her meaning.
 * Regarding the inclusion of the ADL's characterisation of the PLO, there are many things that can be said about the PLO, so why choose this particular characterisation? E.g. why not say "The Palestinian is about the activities of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), an organization founded in 1964 with the purpose of the Arab unity and the liberation of Palestine" or ""The Palestinian is about the activities of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), recognised as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people by over 100 states with which it holds diplomatic relations, and, as the official government of the State of Palestine". The latter characterisations would explain why "counter-protestors waved PLO flags" outside the Academy Awards. Neither of the latter two sentences are suitable for inclusion for the same reason that the ADL's characterisation is unsuitable. Burrobert (talk) 12:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Burrobert, which link didn't work, the History.com one? If so, I can try to find another one.


 * Regarding that bit from the Daily Telegraph, I thought it was a really good inclusion, I'm glad you found it, especially because it does give both sides of the matter! However, this bit mixes the timeline, as JPost pointed out that the JDL only offered a bounty on her head after the acceptance speech. Also, this bit still doesn't point out that Redgrave referring only to JDL was a clarification made later, and that Redgrave's comment would have been taken in the context of the Jewish community already upset with Redgrave's film. The same is true for why her comment was an ill-chosen phrase: that bit only mentions why it's problematic for Israel, not why Redgrave's PLO support at the time troubled Jews overall (because the PLO also targeted non-Israeli Jews).
 * Regarding why include that specific aspect of the PLO's perception, I would say because the question isn't what the PLO was, it was why the Jewish community (again, larger than the JDL alone) would take issue with PLO support back then. You're right that the PLO today is recognized as legitimate (by Israel, too). That's why I included "at the time". Because the recognition and legitimization of the PLO was a process that started in 1988. So support for the PLO today doesn't mean the same thing as support for the PLO back in 1977. And again, I only ended up falling into this rabbit hole because I wanted to find a reliable citation about the bombing! But I ended up reading so much, I feel like narrowing the context down misses some of why Redgrave got the reaction she did when she made her comment. The ADL's timeline on the PLO expresses to a great degree the view of the Jewish community back then (as well as shows how the PLO has changed since)... Darren.enlight (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The history.com link was not available in my area.
 * Can you write down what you think the timeline is (with references). E.g. when did the JDL offer a bounty etc. It is something I am unclear about.
 * Regarding the bounty, it is a significant event so should be included in Redgrave's bio somewhere. We just need to find the appropriate chronological location. If the bounty was offered after the Academy Award speech, would it be accurate to say it was triggered by the speech?
 * We seem to need more work to determine what exactly Redgrave was referring to with the phrase "small bunch of Zionist hoodlums". It is obvious from the words "small bunch" that it was not the state of Israel. Burrobert (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * OK, I found this link that shows in 1987, the US itself considered the PLO a terrorist organization based on its history of terror attacks and stated strategy, and this link says the PLO's first terrorist attack was carried out on Jan 1, 1965.


 * From what I understand of the timeline (which was expanded on with the most details in the JPost article), Redgrave first encountered anger over her support of the PLO with the screening of The Palestinian, then came the Oscars ceremony (April 3, 1978) where there were protests by the JDL and counter-protests which included PLO flags waving, there was a violent confrontation between the JDL and people wearing Nazi uniforms, but this was stated to have been the only violent part during those protests. Then came the theater bombing carried out by a minor who was a member of the JDL (June 15, 1978). Then came the burning of Redgrave's likeness by a group of JDL supporters in Philadelphia in 1980 after she was cast as a Holocaust survivor. The Jpost article also mentions that "In the years after her Oscar’s speech, Redgrave called for the boycott of the State of Israel, said the country should be dismantled, and expressed support for the PLO." This article from The Forward as well as this one from Haaretz say the bounty on Redgrave's head is "alleged"; JPost doesn't have a date for the supposed bounty, while they have a date for everything else, so I'm not sure. I can try to keep looking for confirmation, but in the meantime, I don't know if I would include it. If I find a confirmation and date, we can definitely include it in the correct place in the timeline.
 * I'm not sure that "small bunch" implies that to Jews listening to Redgrave. All Jews (Zionist and non-Zionist together) only make up 0.2% of the human population, so you could even refer to all Jews as "small bunch" and not be technically incorrect. I think because of her agreement with Arafat during his interview in The Palestinian that Israel should be dismantled, we could say that even if today we know she clarified that she meant the JDL alone, at the time when she made the remark, it was ambiguous, since Jewish critics of her film could have been also understood to be included in that remark. I feel like Paddy's reaction made it clear people didn't take her remark as referring to the JDL alone, because I don't believe he was a supporter of the JDL, yet he felt compelled to reply to her. Darren.enlight (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Redgrave also said that the behaviour of the "small bunch of Zionist hoodlums" was "an insult to the stature of Jews all over the world", which is a further indication that she was not making a general statement and had a particular group of people in mind. Was it the JDL as stated in the Daily Telegraph?
 * The statement is however ambiguous, which, it seems, angered some Jewish groups.
 * There are two things which appear to have offended supporters of Israel. Firstly, the film The Palestinian and secondly Redgrave's reference to "Zionist hoodlums" in her acceptance speech. We should try to distinguish between these if possible.
 * Did you know that Paddy Chayefsky rejected Jane Fonda and Vanessa Redgrave for the role of the female lead in Network because of their "anti-Israel leanings," even though Redgrave was director Sidney Lumet's first choice? Responding to Redgrave's speech, Chayefsky said "I’m sick and tired of people exploiting the Academy Awards for the propagation of their own personal propaganda". Chayefsky's speech also apparently created some controversy.
 * I don't doubt that the PLO has been called a terrorist group at various points in its history. That should be, and I believe is, on its Wikipedia page. We don't need to restate that here unless a source gives that as the reason for their criticism of Redgrave's speech. So, if a notable person said they were appalled by Redgrave's speech because they considered the PLO as a terrorist group, then we could include that within Redgrave's bio, attributed to the person making the statement.
 * Apparently there were other reactions to Redgrave's speech. The following source says "many in the Academy were angered by Redgrave’s speech. Some, however, defended her, including Karen Black, Joan Hackett, and Moshe Mizrahi, the Israeli director of Best Foreign Language Film winner Madame Rosa".
 * We haven't discussed the effect of this on her subsequent career. A number of sources have stated that the controversy surrounding these incidents had a detrimental effect on her subsequent career. Dan Callahan's opinion is quoted in the bio, but, afaict, he is not the only one to draw that conclusion.
 * Not sure about the bounty allegation. If there is nothing definite, perhaps we should leave it out.
 * Burrobert (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * She did say that! But it's still ambiguous. Since by the time the ceremony took place, she was already known as an anti-Zionist, she could have meant Zionists overall were behaving in a manner that was an insult to the stature of Jews. So yeah, I think for accurate context, the text should reflect that her remark was ambiguous. And I'm not sure that it's correct to distinguish the movie from her Oscars speech if her Oscars speech was probably understood in the context of her film. The timeline on these events should be made clear, though.
 * I did read that about Paddy Chayefsy at some point during my plunge down the rabbit hole. (I read so much more than I thought I would! XD ) Which actually strengthens the ambiguity of Redgrave's remark. Network opened in 1976, before she even filmed The Palestinian, meaning she already had a reputation as an anti-Zionist even before the film was made and opened in 1977 and the Oscars ceremony in 1978. It makes it even more likely that her 'Zionist hoodlums' remark would have been understood as a general, anti-Zionist comment rather than targeted at the JDL alone.
 * Okay, I found this quote that explains the criticism of Redgrave's support of the PLO in view of their terrorist activity at the time: "Theodore Bikel has criticized Vanessa Redgrave's support of the Palestine Liberation Organization; calling her “an ideological partner of the murderers of schoolchildren at Ma'alot, of pregnant women at Qiryat Shmona, of Olympic athletes at Munich, indeed of Wasfi Tal, an Arab minister, in Cairo and of hundreds of Jews and Arabs alike in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Gaza.”" Source: NYT In fact, this NYT article talks about Redgrave presenting a quote from Yasser Arafat, the PLO's leader, in which he states, "we are against Zionism," and that appeared in The Palestinian, once again muddying the waters when it comes to understanding who was her remark's target during the speech.
 * OMG, I just keep going deeper down the rabbit hole. XD So I was looking to verify that Moshe Mizrahi said that, and stuff I found includes that while Mizrahi is an Israeli-French director, his Oscar winning movie "Madame Rosa" won for France, and actually defeated the Israeli nominee at the Oscars that year (Operation Thunderbolt), so how it's worded should be careful. The way the article you linked to worded it made it sound like he won an Oscar for Israel. It turns out, no Oscar has ever been won for Israel, so anyone who knows that and reads that article might doubt the credibility of the article. Anyhow, Callahan seems to be the only source saying Mizrahi backed Redgrave up, the article you linked to quotes his book verbatim. Meanwhile, this article that mentions Redgrave's speech as well as Mizrahi doesn't indicate any response from him about her remark. I wish we could verify this by finding one more source other than Callahan. It should be included. But Callahan's book has another quote that shows the ambiguity around her remark. Comedian Alan King, who wasn't a member of the JDL, is quoted in the book as saying: "I am the Zionist hoodlum she was talking about."
 * IDK about that statement about her career, just because I can't seem to find anything factual to back this up? Network is a role she was refused before her remark at the Oscars, I can't find a meaningful lull in her career after the Oscars, Callahan specifically mentions in his book that the producer of Yanks had considered firing her, but then he decided against it as it would be a suppression of free speech, and Redgrave got the role of a Holocaust survivor in 1980, despite the survivor herself objecting to the casting. Do we know of any other role that it was stated she lost specifically because of her remark at the Oscars? Callahan's book makes the statement that the speech hurt her career, but doesn't mention a single specific role she lost because of it. I think we can definitely mention Callahan's statement, but it could be an assumption he made that others made as well without real proof, IDK. Darren.enlight (talk) 04:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I have constructed a list of topics that have been raised as part of this discussion, and which perhaps should be included in the bio. Some of this is relevant to the section on Julia and some is better suited to the section on Political activism. Have I missed anything? One approach would be to systematically go into each item, flesh it out and add references. The result could then be added to the bio at an appropriate location. Burrobert (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Work out the timeline of events as much as possible. You gave a rough summary earlier so we need the sources to back that up.
 * The Palestinian. Should we provide more detail about the content of the film?
 * Redgrave’s speech. Have we included enough of the speech? We should include her explanation, which is available in her autobiography "When I referred to the "Zionist hoodlums," I meant, of course, the Jewish Defense League and their death threats".
 * Reactions to Redgrave’s speech, both critical and supportive with reasons given if available. We could mention here the various interpretations of her speech and the ambiguity that you mentioned (The Daily Telegraph article mentioned the ambiguity - "spectacularly ill-chosen phrase").
 * Paddy Chayefsky. We should include a quote of his comment on the speech. And add his refusal to consider Redgrave for the film Network.
 * The bombing.
 * The hypothesised effect of the speech on Redgrave’s career, attributed to those making the statement. There seems to be no way of proving or disproving whether there was an effect, so the best we have are statements from those who are in a position to judge. We don't need to provide proof in the form of roles she missed out on.

Burrobert Hmmm, I had an idea, tell me what you think. Since this whole issue involves so much context and details, as well as a whole timeline, should it maybe be separated from both the career part and activism, and get its own section under the title "Oscars controversy?" And then under Julia just mention Redgrave's work on the movie and win, and add a referral to this new section?
 * Yes, I can construct the timeline and match each event with the date and source we have for it.
 * That sounds like a good idea to add that! I also think if this subject has its own section, it makes that easier to add.
 * I feel like since we have a link to the full text of the speech, there's no need to repeat it. And her autobiography was published much later, so we can def add it in, but do it in the right place in the timeline.
 * Yes, agreed on the reactions!
 * Agreed on Chayefsky and the bombing.
 * That's what I meant, without a clear effect on her career (such as unemployment or known big roles she lost because of the speech), it's a hypothesis, and should be introduced, absolutely, and in that context. Darren.enlight (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem with having a separate section for the events relating to the Oscars. There is enough material to justify it. Perhaps it should also include reactions to The Palestinian which seems to have been the reason why the JDL was picketing the Oscars. It would also allow the section on Julia - and also The Palestinian if we create one - to focus on the film. Burrobert (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me! Do you want to go ahead and create the new section? BTW, I've been meaning to ask you, how can you tell if a user has met the 30/500 requirement? Darren.enlight (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You can access a summary of your contributions by clicking on "Edit count" at the bottom of you contributions page. It looks as though you now have over 500 edits so you are qualified to edit Arab/Israeli articles, including this one. I'll look into the new section and post a suggestion here before updating the article. Not sure how long it will take. Burrobert (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Wooot, that would make things easier in this collab! ^u^ And yes, sounds good! Looking forward to it! Darren.enlight (talk) 10:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

In the 1977 film Julia, Redgrave starred in the title role as a woman murdered by the Nazi Germany regime in the years prior to World War II for her anti-Fascist activism. The film is based on a chapter from Lillian Hellman’s book of memoirs Pentimento. Redgrave’s co-star in the film was Jane Fonda, who played Lillian Hellman, a friend of Julia. In her 2005 autobiography, Fonda wrote that: {bquote|there is a quality about Vanessa that makes me feel as if she resides in a netherworld of mystery that eludes the rest of us mortals. Her voice seems to come from some deep place that knows all suffering and all secrets. Watching her work is like seeing through layers of glass, each layer painted in mythic watercolour images, layer after layer, until it becomes dark, but even then you know you haven't come to the bottom of it ... The only other time I had experienced this with an actor was with Marlon Brando ... Like Vanessa, he always seemed to be in another reality, working off some secret, magnetic, inner rhythm.}}

Also in 1977, Redgrave produced and starred in an anti-Israel documentary film, The Palestinian, about the activities of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). The documentary is narrated by Redgrave who also interviews Palestinian refugees and leaders in Lebanon. Redgrave funded the documentary by selling her house. The Anti-Defamation League's honorary chairman criticised the film for not translating some of the Arabic language interviews, for showing children training with guns and for repeating the phrase "Kill the enemy!". Theodore Bikel, president of Actors Equity in the United States said that he had seen a transcript of the film in which the chairman of the PLO, Yasser Arafat, said that the only solution to the Middle East problem is the liquidation of the State of Israel, and Redgrave responded with, "Certainly".

While Redgrave was on tour to promote Julia she screened The Palestinian to potential distributors. The Jewish Defense League (JDL) objected to the film and threatened to boycott 20th Century Fox, the studio behind Julia, unless it promised never to employ Redgrave again and repudiated her support for the PLO. Fox refused.

Redgrave was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for her role in Julia. Members of the JDL, led by Rabbi Meir Kahane, picketed and burned effigies of Redgrave outside the Academy Awards ceremony in April 1978, while counter-protestors waved PLO flags. Redgrave was brought to the awards ceremony in an ambulance, and dropped in the underground garage so JDL protesters would not heckle her. Redgrave won the Oscar and in her acceptance speech, she thanked Hollywood for having "refused to be intimidated by the threats of a small bunch of Zionist hoodlums – whose behaviour is an insult to the stature of Jews all over the world and to their great and heroic record of struggle against fascism and oppression". Later in the awards ceremony, screenwriter Paddy Chayefsky, who was an ardent supporter of Israel said, {bquote|I would like to say — personal opinion of course — that I’m sick and tired of people exploiting the Academy Awards for the propagation of their own political propaganda. I would like to suggest to Miss Redgrave that her winning the Academy Award is not a pivotal moment in history, does not require a proclamation, and a simple “thank you” would have sufficed.}}

In June 1978, a bomb exploded at a theatre showing The Palestinian, causing damage to property. Screening of the film resumed the following day. Two months later, A JDL member was convicted of the bombing and sentenced to a three-month "thorough psychological examination" with the California Youth Authority.

In his biography of Redgrave, Dan Callahan wrote, "The scandal of her awards speech and the negative press it occasioned had a destructive effect on her acting opportunities that would last for years to come". The New York Times wrote in 2019, that Redgrave’s career recovered and she received further Academy Award nominations in 1984 and 1992. In her 1991 autobiography, Redgrave said that “When I referred to the "Zionist hoodlums," I meant, of course, the Jewish Defense League and their death threats". The Daily Telegraph wrote in 2012 that "It’s clear now that she was referring to the extremists of the Jewish Defense League who had offered a bounty to have her killed. Yet in the context of her support for the PLO, this was a spectacularly ill-chosen phrase, one that made it possible for Redgrave’s detractors to imply that she meant the whole state of Israel, and thus damn her as an anti-Semite for years to come". In a 2018 interview, Redgrave stood by her 1978 Academy Award acceptance speech, saying "I had to do my bit. Everybody had to do their bit, to try and change things for the better, to advocate for what’s right and not be dismayed if immediately you don’t see results". In 2019, editor Tom O’Neil said "Her career survived because of her stature in the industry, and people ultimately realised she was being pro-Palestinian and not anti-Israeli. But her speech just came across so badly". Burrobert (talk) 16:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Darren I have posted above the events surrounding Julia, The Palestinian and the 1978 Academy Awards ceremony. This can act as a starting point for further development. Some comments:
 * - Afaict this is the correct chronological sequence of events.
 * - It is missing some contemporary reactions as I have not been able to find anything significant, other than "many in the Academy were angered by Redgrave’s speech. Some, however, defended her, including Karen Black, Joan Hackett, and Moshe Mizrahi". Buck Henry said of The Palestinian "It's not a great artistic picture. In fact, at times it's tedious; it's much too long" and that he did not like "some scenes in which Miss Redgrave apparently accompanied a commando raid and photographed young people training with weapons". But, he said, there were illuminating sequences that could help to lead to more understanding of the Palestinians, including an at times “infuriating” interview with Yassir Arafat. I have not included this assessment because Henry was involved in the making of the documentary.
 * - The final paragraph consists of some retrospective assessments, including by Redgrave herself.
 * Burrobert (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)