Legendary Actor Vanessa Redgrave Calls Cancellation of Rachel Corrie Play an “Act of Catastrophic Cowardice”
From Democracy Now!
Download .mp3
A New York theater company is coming under criticism for backing out of an agreement to stage a play based on the life of U.S. peace activist Rachel Corrie. The play’s producers are calling the decision censorship. Corrie was killed in Gaza nearly three years ago when she stood in front of an Israeli bulldozer set to demolish a Palestinian home. We speak with actor and activist Vanessa Redgrave.
Rachel Corrie was 23 years old when she was crushed by the bulldozer. The play, entitled “My Name is Rachel Corrie”, is based on her writings before her death. James Nicola, artistic director of the New York Theater Workshop, said “In our pre-production planning and our talking around and listening in our communities in New York, what we heard was that after Ariel Sharon’s illness and the election of Hamas, we had a very edgy situation. We found that our plan to present a work of art would be seen as us taking a stand in a political conflict, that we didn’t want to take.”
Last night we spoke with Oscar award-winning actress and activist, Vanessa Redgrave.
Vanessa is one of the most famous of the legendary Redgrave acting dynasty. She started her acting career opposite her father, Sir Michael Redgrave. Her children are Natasha Richardson and Jolie Richardson. Her son-in-law is Liam Neeson and heer brother is the equally outspoken Corin Redgrave. Her sister is actor Lynne Redgrave.
During her acting career that spanned some 47 years she has served as UN goodwill ambassador and was a founding member of International Artists Against Racism.
In 1977, Redgrave funded and narrated a documentary film on the plight of the Palestinian people. That same year she starred in the film Julia, about a woman murdered by the Nazi regime in the years prior to World War II for her anti-Fascist activism. She won an Oscar for her performance. At the awards ceremony she spoke out on behalf of Palestinians, an Oscar acceptance speech that is referred to even to this day.
March 8th, 2006 at 1:15 pm
Dear friends:
It is an outrage that a kindred spirit like Rachel Corrie would have her legacy silenced by those who fear the truth that is shown in the way she died. I am an Egyptian, a Muslim and a supporter of the Palestinian cause. Rachel has done much more for the Palestinians than many of their Arab ‘brethren’ that pretend to care.
To me Rachel represents more than a peace activist killed under an aggressor’s bulldozer. To me Rachel is a potential healer, a bridge between peoples In the midst of all the ‘negative publicity’ the neocons are giving America Arab world, her actions and deeds tell us that there is indeed another America out there. . Her story is little known in Egypt. But whenever the issue of Palestine or the US government aggression in Iraq comes up in discussions in Egypt, I immediately site Rachel as an example of how much not all Americans are George W. Bush! As someone who lived once in the US, I know that for a fact. But Rachel’s life gave me a powerful tool: an example of who kind and caring Americans are when they are not misinformed. Such an example I use whenever I speak about Americans when I talk to an Arab/Muslim who never lived in the US.
I send my best wishes to her parents.
God Bless all of you
Asslamo Alikum (may peace be upon you)
March 8th, 2006 at 4:21 pm
Why didn’t Egypt in 1967 take back Gaza in a peace deal? If Egypt did that, more than half the Palestinians wouldn’t be in the trouble they’re in today?
March 8th, 2006 at 9:02 pm
Egypt did not take back Gaza, because Gaza was not on offer to Egypt from Israel. You’re assuming that Israel would gladly have given the Gaza Strip to Egypt, when in fact that was never an Israeli intention. There was no offer from Israel to return land, taken and occupied illegally, to Egypt until Egyptian president, Sadat, signed an agreement with Israeli Prime Minister Began. Israel returned the Sinai Penisula to Egypt in exchange for Sadat’s signing a peace agreement with Israel. Sadat broke with his own people to sign that agreement, since the Egyptian public supported the rights of the Palestinian people. They did not believe in a “separate” peace with Israel that kept the Israeli military and settlers in the Occupied Territories. Sadat paid for that break with his own public along with other problems in his presidency with his life.
Your comment seems to assume that the Palestinians are not really on their own land and thus the Arab states should somehow claim their land and them. While it was possible for Egypt and Jordan to “share” East Jerusalem, Gaza, and the West Bank, prior to 1967, it was not possible for them to claim Palestinian land or the Palestinian people as “their’s” after the 1967 war and the creation of the P.L.O. The P.L.O. was based on the idea that the Palestinians could not count on the Arab states to save Palestine or any Palestinians. Rather, Palestinians had to represent themselves in their own liberation organization and without being at the behest of the Arab states at every turn. The P.L.O. was not just about liberating Palestinians from Israeli military control; it was about liberating the Palestinian cause from the Arab system of authoritarian governance. That system had lost Palestine in the war of 1948. That same system lost what remained of historical Palestine in the 1967 war. Palestinians figured that they had to defend themselves and take control of their own national cause. They had to do this, precisely because they were and are not Egyptians, Jordanians, Iraqis, Lebanese, Syrians, Saudis, etc. They are Palestinians.
March 9th, 2006 at 6:26 am
The questions of why dictators in the Arab world took a certain course of action in relationship with the Palestinian people is pointless. As a regular Arab and Muslim, I blame a lot of the suffering of the Palestinian people on what my leaders chose to do or not to do. And in some cases (aka Jordanian leaders), chose to betray!
The Palestinian cause did not start in 1967, but rather in 1948 when 418 of their towns and villages were destroyed in order to make way for the ’state’ of Israel. Prior to 1967, the Arab Nationalist government of Gamal Abdoul Nasser “administered” Gaza “temporarily” until all of Palestine was to be ‘liberated’. However, the hopes of the return of the Historical Palestine was dashed after the 1967 war which brought not only the rest of Palestine but the Golan Heights and Sinai to Israeli control.
With the death of Nasser in 1970 the new Sadat regime started an “Egypt-first” policy and broke ranks with the Nasserite legacy. Many who support Sadat in Egypt blame the Palestinian leadership at the time for not going along with the Egyptian plan to recognize Israel and create a Palestinian state on 22% of Historical Palestine. At the time that was a hard thing for the Palestinian leadership to sallow, so Egypt went it alone. It wasn’t until the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and the arrival of US troops in the Persian Gulf that the geopolitical shift was too strong for the PLO. Yasser Arafat had made the ‘political’ mistake of thinking that Saddam’s linking the Palestinian issue to the Kuwait issue was in Palestinian’s favor. Saddam lost so Arafat had to finally go along with the idea of a Palestinian state on a fraction of the original land. He engaged in negotiations that put off the critical questions of the status of Jerusalem and the Right of Return to the last moment. But when Barak offered him in 2000 less than 40% of the West Bank and all of Gaza, a mere 14% of Historical Palestine, Arafat could not sign. It was such a humiliating offer that not the most lenient Palestinian could accept. And thus started the Second Intifada.
The only peaceful solution to the Palestinian Israeli conflict that would give dignity back to the Palestinians in my view is to allow the 5 million Palestinian refugees to return home in what is now called “Israel” and create a single multiethnic nation of Palestine-Israel. This would certainly dilute the Jewish majority in Palestine, but it would be the only historically fair thing to do. The question becomes simple: will the Israeli regime and a majority of the Israeli public conceded to the historical wrong that was committed upon my brethren and recognize the beauty of multi ethnicity? Or will racism continue to motivate the Israeli leadership to seek ethnic cleansing of Palestinians as it has done in a systematic manner since the massacre of Deir Yassin in 1948.
What Rachel Corrie’s letter (which almost brought me to tears) shows is the racist ideology that motivates the IDF to kill children point blank? I recognize the fact that some Israeli soldiers have broken ranks and refused orders, but this remains a small fraction of a generally racist army.
Rachel’s legacy should bring shame to the majority of Arab leaders and most of the Arab masses. She had done much more for the Palestinian people in her short life than most of Palestine’s so called ‘brethren’.
March 9th, 2006 at 9:08 am
We would like to urge everyone to stay on topic in their comments. There are plenty of websites and forums available to discuss the historical points of the broader regional conflict. We appreciate your contributions, however this comment thread is now closed. Thank you for your understanding.
March 9th, 2006 at 11:04 am
Once again history has repeated itself. In 1987 the Socialist palywright, Jim Allen saw his play “Perdition” closed down in London and banned from performance in England due to unprecedented protests from Zionists. The play depicted the historical agreement former Hungarian Zionist leader Rudolf Kasztner made with Adolf Eichmann that allowed Kasztner and a handful of promenient Hugarian Zionists to escape and sent over 500,000 Hungarian Jews to the camps. When Allen and hie producer, Ken Loach attempted to mount the production in Ireland the following year with Gabriel Byrne as the lead they were met with the same unrelenting resistance. The production which was slated to open at Dublin’s famed Olympia Theater failed to do so. Once again Zionist pressure has censored a historical work of art, in this case based solely on the letters Ms. Corrie wrote to her family. Sending someone like David Irving to prison for exercising his right to free speech was bad enough. Censoring a play that amounts to a public reading of a family’s letters from their daughter is pure fascism.
March 11th, 2006 at 8:43 pm
I am outraged by the cowardice of James Nicola and NYTW. I hope that Rachel’s Words will be heard throughout the United States through some other media. I found the compassionate comments made by Mohamed-Ismail Y. Rakha extremely interesting and the comment issued from “Rachel’s Words” baffling. Can it possibly be a forum denouncing censorship, censors? Sorry but I fail to understand.
March 12th, 2006 at 11:58 am
It was to be expected that the play would be censored, and I don’t see it being played by the New York Theater Workshop in the future. What I do hope though, is that this magnificent young woman’s life should one day be immortalised in film. Who knows, it might even be nominated for an academy award?
September 1st, 2006 at 3:43 pm
I agree with dandelion. After all, This is what Rachel Corrie’s life and death was all about. The complex crimes of the Israeli Army against the Palestinians. So therefore, how else can one get around talking about the Middle East issues when we talk about Rachel Corrie? I am writing on September 1, 2006. Israel just murdered over 1,250 women, children and men, 95% of them UNARMED, DEFENCELESS. I am afraid the issues of the Middle East will never go away and they shouldn’t. While Lebanon and Iraq are getting slaughtered periodically by an evil Zionistic forum, Palestinians have been suffering a slow insidious holocaust since 3 years before the inception of Israel and afterwards. That is 60+ years. And guess what? With the way things are going, I’m sure Lebanon is set for another good old fashioned massacre courtesy of the Zionist generosity of the USA and Israel. So I say, let not Rachel Corrie’s death be in vain. I believe that she would have wanted a discussion to keep on going about the Middle East and in her name. I am positive of this.