Talk:Perdition (play)
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Antisemitism
editThe play was cancelled 36 hours before first staging because of an uproar regarding accusations that it was antisemitic. Why this isn't in the article is beyond me because that is probably its major claim to notability. I'm not prepared to add it without comments from others because, well, anything related to this issue seems to create a shitstorm. So, is there any good reason why the accusations should not be covered in some depth? - Sitush (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Some broadcast sources
editThe documentary film Versus (2016) includes interviews with Max Stafford-Clark (regretting both producing and cancelling the play), Ken Loach (complaining about Stafford-Clark's 'cowardice' and accusers' failure to engage with the play or substantiate their criticism of it), Gabriel Byrne (admiringly recalling Loach's excoriating attack on Stafford-Clark at the time). However, those are quite close to being primary sources, and also focussing on reactions to the controversy as part of 'censorship' of Loach in the 1980s, rather than the context of the play.
More useful probably is Mark Lawson providing a great deal of critical context about Kastner, and Ben Hecht and interviewing Michael Billington, who had seen all three productions. Also covers the political criticism of and by 'Zionists'. 'Setting the Past Free', BBC Radio 4, 2x30 minutes, first broadcast 17-24 March 2016 [1]. --Cedderstk 21:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Paul Bogdanor's Kasztner's Crime
editI removed a reference to Bogdanor's assessment Kasztner was guilty of working with the Nazis, but this passage has been restored. As far as I can tell from the Google preview, aside from a footnote, he does not refer to Perdition in the book. The incidents Jim Allen drew on for his play have multiple interpretations as to Kasztner's culpability. Bogdanor, in a 2017 Fathom article, is strongly dismissive of Lennie Brenner's book, Zionism in the Age of Dictators, ("The book is a fixture of antizionist and antisemitic propaganda about the Holocaust on both the far left and on the far right"),[1] though Allen considered it a "goldmine" for his work. By implication, citing Bogdanor's work in this context is totally misleading, falsely suggesting he defends Allen's play. Philip Cross (talk) 09:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- I agree this is not relevant here. This article is not about the historical events but about the play. As Bogdanor's account was neither a source for Allen nor commented on Perdition it doesn't contribute here. And the specific quotation is not actually about the facts, but a sentence in which Bogdanor makes a value judgement about Kasztner. If it belongs in Wikipedia, it belongs in the Rudolf Kasztner article, not here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- Not an RS, but one review of Bogdanor's book says:
Bogdanor makes passing mention of the controversy about ‘Perdition” and the identification of Kasztner as “the avatar of a Zionist-Nazi conspiracy to murder the Jews of Europe in order to justify creating the ‘fascist’ state of Israel.” Bogdanor’s riposte: “such ideas, if they can be dignified as such, have no contact with reality.”
[2] BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ Bogdanor, Paul (June 2016). "An Antisemitic Hoax: Lenni Brenner on Zionist 'Collaboration' With the Nazis". Fathom. Retrieved 27 August 2021.
Unclear meaning/syntax in section "Outline"
editThis sentence from the third paragraph of the "Outline" section is syntactically incomplete/ambiguous:
"Allen queries whether the saving of certain Jews in a purported act of collaboration in line with Zionist philosophies about populating Israel at the expense of those Jews who remained."
What Allen queries (the "whether") is unclear as it stands. Does he query whether the saving of some was an act of collaboration, or whether the purported act of collaboration was in line with Zionist philosophies, or whether the saving of some came at the expense of those who remained? From the context, I would guess the meaning to be the second of these, in which case inserting "is" or "was" before "in line with Zionist philosophies" would convey that meaning. Transmogriff (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)