logo
Artist or activist? For Juliet Stevenson and her husband, Gaza leaves them with no choice

Artist or activist? For Juliet Stevenson and her husband, Gaza leaves them with no choice

The Guardiana day ago
Read any celebrity-signed open letter advocating for social justice over the past few years and you'll probably spot Juliet Stevenson's name. When the veteran actor is not gracing screens or on a stage somewhere, she's out on the streets brandishing a placard or giving speeches about human rights, gender equality and the Palestinian right to self-determination.
The Guardian's journalism is independent. We will earn a commission if you buy something through an affiliate link. Learn more.
Just last month, she wrote in the Guardian about the British government's 'complicity' in the Gaza atrocities and what she called an attempt to repress civil liberties by proscribing Palestine Action as a terrorist group.
Critics may – and they do – disparage Stevenson as a 'luvvie' engaging in typical performative liberal politics, but spend just a few minutes with the actor and her husband – the anthropologist, film-maker and writer Hugh Brody – and you quickly discover that the roots of their activism run far deeper than that.
In fact, the fight for peace and justice in Palestine is something that has defined the couple's relationship for 32 years, particularly because Brody is Jewish and the son of a Holocaust survivor.
'We've both been very concerned with issues around Palestine for a very long time,' Stevenson tells me from her kitchen table in north London, where she's sitting with her husband. 'We were both absolutely horrified by what happened on 7 October. But as the onslaught on Gaza began, and the numbers of dead quickly rose, we became increasingly upset, angry and anxious about it.'
'Israel and Palestine has been a huge issue for me for the entirety of my adult life, and it was inevitably something I brought to the conversation with Juliet when we met,' Brody says. Listening to him as he delves into his family history, it's not difficult to see why.
'My mother, Gertrude Schaefer, was brought up with a sense of enormous tragedy and death, which she passed on to me. She came from an Austro-Polish family in Vienna, and was a part of the city's highly assimilated, sophisticated and cultured Jewish community. Her mother had been a student of Adler, my mother knew the Freuds.'
But, after the Anschluss in 1938, when it 'became evident that it was very dangerous to be a Jew under the German occupation', Gertrude – a mere 18-year-old at the time – fled Austria for the UK with the help of some quakers. 'She was transferred to Sheffield to work at the hospitals as a junior nurse.'
Brody's grandmother eventually managed to join her daughter and her daughter's new husband (a Jewish doctor) in Sheffield. 'But by the end of the war, she discovered that almost everybody else in her family was dead.'
All of this contributes towards the couple's commitment to the Palestinian cause. Stevenson and Brody (82) have never given an interview together, but the escalating crisis in the Middle East has compelled them to move beyond artistic power couple and into the far more risky territory of campaigning.
The couple are confident that Gertrude would have entirely supported their stance. 'She was a woman with a very strong sense of social justice,' Brody says. 'She was appalled by what she saw in Palestine in the last years of her life.'
Stevenson talks of how much she adored her mother-in-law, who she calls an 'absolutely brilliant' woman. 'She could have done anything, but her whole life was marked by the Holocaust. I know that she would be absolutely horrified by what's gone on in the last 21 months in Gaza, as have many of our Jewish friends. There have been some very difficult conversations around this kitchen table.'
Stevenson and Brody met at a mutual friend's dinner party in 1993. She is unbelievably glad that she didn't give in to her impulse to cancel that night, she says. 'By that point I'd had to play a lot of characters in Shakespeare who fell in love at first sight, and I always thought it was ridiculous. But when I walked into the room and met Hugh, something really weird happened to me. Something shifted in my gut. All evening I sat and listened to his stories and thought: 'You are the most interesting and gorgeous man I've ever met.''
The actor's screen credits include a Bafta-nominated turn as a grieving cellist in Anthony Minghella's 1990 film Truly, Madly, Deeply (opposite Alan Rickman), a hapless mother in Bend it Like Beckham, and a nurse in Mona Lisa Smile. On stage, she has been in productions including Measure for Measure, Les Liaisons Dangereuses, and Death and the Maiden – for which she received the Olivier award for best actress.
Her calendar remains jam-packed: she recently starred in the Virginia Gilbert film Reawakening, the BBC series Wolf, and Robert Icke's play The Doctor (which was, ironically, about a doctor cancelled for standing up for her principles).
But much of what has been occupying her recently is helping to organise a fundraising event with Health Workers 4 Palestine, a grassroots group of medical workers who came together to support colleagues in Gaza. Voices of Solidarity, an evening of music, comedy and spoken word taking place at the Troxy in London next Saturday (19 July), is billed as the UK's largest cultural fundraiser for Palestine and aims to raise £1m for medicines and medical equipment.
Stevenson will also be doing a reading on the night, alongside a lineup that includes Bassem Youssef, Paloma Faith, Khalid Abdalla and Alexei Sayle. She says it is more important than ever for those with a platform to speak for the voiceless.
Both her and Brody believe 'a fear of being branded as antisemitic' is a big factor in many people's silence. 'In my industry, every institution, every arts organisation who could and should be standing up is too frightened, because of the risk of losing money and sponsorship,' she says.
'It kind of makes you crazy, because you think: have you not seen the footage of Israelis in Israel sitting in the streets holding pictures of dead Palestinian children and saying, 'not in our name'? Have you not seen the hundreds of rabbis sitting down in Grand Central station in New York and saying, 'not in our name'? Have you not seen the Jewish bloc at the protests on Saturdays in London streets saying, 'not in our name'?'
'This equation of anti-Zionism and antisemitism has been a very difficult thing for me and many others,' Brody says. 'It's an absurdity and an ideological trap. It lays the foundation for a whole new kind of antisemitism. My view of Israel evolves, my relationship to Zionism changes, but my Jewishness hasn't changed. That's fixed.'
The evolution Brody is talking about has taken place over the course of several decades, and was recorded in his 2022 book, Landscapes of Silence. He speaks at length about the months he spent as a 19-year-old living in a socialist kibbutz on the border of Israel and Gaza, and the 'extraordinary egalitarianism' that filled him with hope and excitement. 'As someone brought up in the shadow of the Holocaust, Israel represented to me, and to my family, a place of safety in a world that was deeply and chronically unsafe,' he says.
But the events of the subsequent years seeded a dichotomy within him. With each conflict, he says, he was torn between a deep need for Israel and growing outrage over the actions of the Israeli state. 'It became a question in my mind: what has happened here? Whatever bit of idealism might have been there faded away.'
Then came the horrifying events of 7 October and the Netanyahu government's subsequent war on Gaza. 'That war has grown into a genocide,' he says, 'and a point comes where the silence must be broken. The crimes have to be challenged. If we care for the safety and survival of Israel, all the more reason to protest as loudly as possible against its current regime.'
The international court of justice is weighing the charge of genocide against Israel. According to the Gaza health ministry, more than 57,000 Palestinians have been killed by Israel's campaign in Gaza (a robust independent survey recently put the count at almost 84,000). The war was triggered in October 2023 when Hamas's attack killed 1,200 Israelis and took more than 250 hostage.
Stevenson's anger extends to the UK government's 'moral bankruptcy' and what she describes as the mainstream media's 'shameful' coverage of the situation in Gaza. She mentions the selling of arms to Israel, the proscription of Palestine Action, attempts to ban Kneecap from Glastonbury, and the uproar over Bob Vylan's set.
'That weekend when Bob Vylan was on the front of every newspaper and the subject of every talkshow, something like 90 starving Palestinians were shot dead in Gaza while queueing for food. Nobody covered that at all,' she says.
Stevenson and Brody have two children together – a son and a daughter – but Brody's first son from a previous relationship, Tomo, died suddenly in 2020 at the age of 37. The tragedy has given the couple first-hand experience of the grief that surrounds the loss of a child.
I ask the actor what she thinks the connection is between art and activism, whether it's the case that both require you to communicate the entirety of the human experience, including its unbearable tragedies.
'I've been negotiating that myself,' she says. 'I've talked to Hugh so much about how exactly I can help. I always try to bring the human story to crowds, to appeal to the Jo Cox principle, that we have more in common than that which divides us.'
'Can I say something about the connection between Juliet's art and Juliet's activism?' Brody says. 'There are some words that come to mind to describe Juliet's qualities on stage and on screen. Words like clarity, integrity and seeking truth in the text. She is transcendently wonderful on stage because of these characteristics, but they are inseparable from her commitment to speaking truth.'
At this point Stevenson tears up and begins rubbing her husband's back. 'That's making me cry,' she says. 'I'm not being soppy, but I find this concealing or manipulation of the truth unbearable. People's babies are being shot, children are being buried under rubble. Unspeakable trauma is being inflicted on children and parents.'
Does she ever fear the repercussions of her activism on her career? Actors such as Melissa Barrera and Susan Sarandon were dropped by Hollywood companies for their comments on Israel and Palestine. 'I do, as do my kids. But I just don't feel like I've got a choice. Does my career really matter, alongside what's going on in Gaza?
'I look at younger actors, and I completely understand why they feel too frightened to speak. They have everything to lose. But I enjoy a lot of status in the industry. I've done a huge amount of work and I continue to work. What really matters to me is that when I get to the end, I can look back and know that I did what I thought was right at the time.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Labour MPs tell Rachel Reeves: Don't rely so much on OBR forecasts
Labour MPs tell Rachel Reeves: Don't rely so much on OBR forecasts

Times

time30 minutes ago

  • Times

Labour MPs tell Rachel Reeves: Don't rely so much on OBR forecasts

Rachel Reeves should stop relying so heavily on the fiscal watchdog because its forecasts are not a 'crystal ball', a group of Labour MPs has said. The chancellor is under pressure to reduce the influence of forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) over tax and spend decisions. The Red Wall caucus of more than 40 Labour MPs has backed calls to 'adjust the way we report and respond to forecasts' and to 'stop treating single-point estimates as gospel'. The MPs also backed calls to cut the forecasts produced by the OBR from two to one a year. • Cabinet minister refuses to rule out wealth taxes in budget Andy MacNae, MP for Rossendale & Darwen in Lancashire, said the OBR provided only a 'rough guide' as to where the economy might be in four years. 'But the OBR has never claimed to have a crystal ball and we shouldn't treat it as if it does,' he said. MacNae pointed to a report from the forecaster in 2023 in which it admitted its 'central forecast' number 'has virtually no chance of being correct'. In March the OBR downgraded the economic effect of Labour's welfare plans before the spring statement, leading to last-minute cuts to benefits totalling £500 million. The following month Sir Keir Starmer criticised the watchdog for the assessment, saying he 'personally struggles' with the way it drew up its forecasts. The prime minister later dropped the reforms to disability benefits after a backbench rebellion. Reeves has indicated that she would consider adopting a different approach to the OBR. This month she said she was 'looking at how the OBR works', adding: 'The International Monetary Fund has made some recommendations about how to deliver better fiscal policymaking and obviously I take those seriously.' In May the IMF said the chancellor should move down to one OBR estimate each year, which it said would prevent the government from responding to short-term market demands for more cuts or tax rises. According to the OBR in March, Reeves recorded £9.9 billion in 'fiscal headroom' — the flexibility in a government's financial plans. The IMF said moving away from the twice-yearly assessment would 'de-emphasise' the importance of the headroom in policymaking, as well as bring the UK into line with other countries. Jo White, the MP for Bassetlaw, Nottinghamshire, who chairs the Red Wall caucus, said: 'To deliver on national renewal we need policy and fiscal stability and the OBR has a vitally important role to play in that. 'Fine-tuning policy to fit a central estimate that we know will be inaccurate is not the way to do that. To recognise the value of the OBR, we must acknowledge their limitations.' Labour strengthened the OBR's powers in the Budget Responsibility Act, one of the first laws passed after the election. This was designed to reassure the markets that Labour would not act like Liz Truss, the former prime minister who bypassed the OBR when she and Kwasi Kwarteng, her chancellor, held a mini-budget. Any softened approach to the watchdog risks spooking the markets and making government borrowing more expensive, one government source said. However, others close to Reeves believe tweaks to the OBR's treatment would be accepted by the markets as necessary.

It's beyond time to end the scandal of IPP
It's beyond time to end the scandal of IPP

The Independent

time39 minutes ago

  • The Independent

It's beyond time to end the scandal of IPP

It comes to something when a senior member of a recent government – the former justice secretary, no less – describes actions by the state that were part of his remit as 'overbearing, unfair and almost totalitarian'. Yet this is how Alex Chalk KC, who held that office for 14 months in the government of Rishi Sunak, describes imprisonment for public protection (IPP) orders – which can keep someone in prison indefinitely after conviction for a relatively minor crime. Ousted from government by his party's defeat at the last election, and also from his parliamentary seat, Mr Chalk has returned to his legal practice. It is from this perch that he is now asking his successor, Shabana Mahmood, to consider new proposals – from the Howard League and a former lord chief justice, Lord Thomas – with a view to righting this now longstanding wrong. At The Independent, we make no apology for returning once again to the iniquity of IPP orders that go against so much of what should constitute any civilised judicial system. Two features stand out. There is the glaring disproportionality in so many cases between the crime and the punishment, with some prisoners having served almost 20 years (and still counting) for offences such as robbing someone of their mobile phone or laptop. This is not, by the way, to diminish such crimes, but to point up the disparity between the standard tariff for such a conviction and the actual time served by many of those still subject to IPP orders. The other feature is the cruelty of imposing a sentence that has no end, which has been described by the UN as psychological torture. With no prospect of a release date, more than 90 such prisoners have taken their own lives. Altogether, more than 2,500 are still languishing in jail on IPPs. This is in spite of these indefinite prison terms having been abolished in 2012, just seven years after they were introduced. The clear mistake then was not to have made the abolition retrospective. It applied only to new convictions, not to those already in jail, leaving the glaring injustice that one day could make a difference between someone left to serve what could become a lifetime sentence and someone convicted of a similar crime with a clear idea of the timetable for release or parole. The failure to make abolition of IPP orders retrospective has had consequences of its own. At least some of those still not released are now so damaged by their experience and will be so hard to rehabilitate that they could indeed present a danger to society if they were released. This is the very opposite of what a penal system should set out to achieve and amounts, in Mr Chalk's words, to nothing less than a failure on the part of the state. At which point, there is an obvious and not unreasonable question for the former justice secretary to answer. If the injustices and perverse effects of IPP orders were so apparent when he came to office – as they were – why did he not do something about it? Why did he not condemn the policy in the same terms as he is doing now and make the changes he is demanding be made by his successor? Part of his answer is that he did do something. He reduced from 10 to three the number of years that a released IPP prisoner was on licence and so subject to recall. That is not nothing, but it was nothing like enough. Two small pleas might also be made on his behalf in mitigation. As he says, there was 'not a single vote' in even the change in the licence period that he made, because of the general lack of public sympathy for prisoners. As he does not say – but is a sentiment with which the current government could well concur – a year can be too short a time in UK politics when it comes to getting anything done. The ponderous nature of the legislative process can be a minus as well as a plus. On the other hand, the size of the Labour government's majority and the years it still has to run mean it has time on its side. After more than a decade of political foot-dragging around IPP orders, however, there is no time to lose. The proposals from the Howard League and Lord Thomas show how this could be done, and offer sufficient safeguards for the public in terms of conditions for those who may be released and a new drive to rehabilitate those still considered a danger to society. At a time when other prisoners are being released ahead of schedule to free up scarce cell space, and the Exchequer needs every penny of saving it can get, it makes no sense at all to keep IPP prisoners inside any longer than the public's safety requires. As Alex Chalk says of the one reform he did make, this may not win a single vote, but it would be the right thing to do. Indeed it is – and the sooner it is done, the better.

Church of England faces civil war over same-sex blessings
Church of England faces civil war over same-sex blessings

Telegraph

time39 minutes ago

  • Telegraph

Church of England faces civil war over same-sex blessings

Church of England parishes are facing civil war over same-sex blessings, it has been claimed. The blessings, for same-sex couples who have already entered a civil marriage or partnership, have been given by vicars since a vote two years ago. But not everyone has to perform them and it has become a point of contention between liberal and conservative clergy. It has now emerged that junior priests are being 'overruled or marginalised' in their parishes by vicars who are against the blessings. One priest complained that in some cases, vicars are promising at their interviews to offer same-sex blessings but once in post have gone back on their word. They claimed juniors are being 'treated horrifically, called names and put down'. It is up to the discretion of each individual vicar as to whether or not they wish to offer the blessings, known as Prayers of Love and Faith (PLF), in their church, according to Church guidelines. The Rev Chantal Noppen, of the diocese of Durham, said in a written question to General Synod, the Church of England's legislative body which is convening in York: 'Clergy who in conscience cannot offer the PLF are assured that they will not be required to do so. 'What corresponding protections or support are in place for Parochial Church Councils [PCCs], lay leaders or clergy colleagues who do wish to offer PLF but find themselves overruled or marginalised – particularly following the appointment of new incumbents whose views differ from the inclusive ethos the parish has long upheld?' The Archbishop of York, the Most Rev Stephen Cottrell, said that if a new vicar's is against offering the blessings, this should be agreed beforehand so that there 'would be no surprise' when they are banned. He said: 'The current guidance indicates that use of the PLF is always at the discretion of the minister. 'Good practice is to make this decision in consultation with the PCC and to work within the tradition and sensitivities of their local context. 'The guidance suggests that if a parish has strong views on whether the prayers should or should not be offered, this should be agreed in advance of the appointment…so that there would be no surprise when a new incumbent takes up their post.' Responding to the Archbishop's comments, the Rev Chantal, who works as the national co-ordinator of Inclusive Church, a pro-LGBT rights group within the Church, said: 'I asked the question because I know it has been happening. And this has not been named or acknowledged openly so I wanted to flag it up.' She said that since asking the question 'I have had more people coming up and telling me that it happened to them, or in their church too'. The priest added that there are 'incredible layers of protection for those who want to remain affirming', adding that 'there has never been a question that any priest will be forced to do something they don't feel they can'. But she accused priests who are against the blessings of blocking those who want to be 'welcoming to the LGBTQ+ community'. She said: 'I've heard of clergy being appointed who have promised at interview to honour the churches theology and praxis, but then once in post they've gone back on that. And very few PCCs are able, or feel able, to push back in those situations.' She added that the views of vicars who do not believe in same-sex blessings are not 'more important or valid', and that 'the morals, integrity and call of priests in other lines of work and fulfilling their vocation in a different way, are not lesser'. 'We have to put up with being treated horrifically, called names and put down,' she said. Left post with 'heavy heart' The historic vote in 2023 was criticised by progressives who claimed it did not go far enough towards full equality because same-sex marriages are still prohibited. Conservatives were also against it, arguing marriage should only be between a man and a woman. In June, the Bishop of Leicester, the Rt Rev Martyn Snow, announced that he would step down as the lead bishop for the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) process, which is designed to support the Church of England's guidance on sexuality. He said he left the post 'with a very heavy heart' and that he no longer believed that agreement could be reached under his leadership. Church officials have since announced that they will not replace him and no longer have a bishop leading the LLF process. Bishop Snow's departure has plunged the Church into further chaos over the issue and comes at a pivotal moment, as the House of Bishops works towards presenting final proposals regarding the institution's stance on sexuality to the General Synod in 2026. The Archbishop of York referenced the ongoing struggles regarding LLF at the top levels of the Church in his opening address to Synod on Friday where he said: 'Although we seem no nearer a settlement that can hold us together, how many other organisations would go this far with such disagreement?'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store