What Exactly Was She?
Copyright: Peter Suschitzky, Julia Donat & Misha Donat
The film “Tracking Edith” currently on distribution in the UK tells the interesting story of Edith Tudor-Hart (nee Suschitsky) photographer and Soviet agent. Despite the 90 minutes or so that it devotes to her she remains a shadowy figure. She was born in Vienna, studied photography at the Bauhaus, and married an Englishman, Alexander Tudor-Hart with whom she had one son before the marriage came to an end. She seems to have been recruited to the Soviet cause by Arnold Deutsch an Austrian communist who was killed during the war. Her interest for students of the cold war is that she is said to have been the person who recruited Kim Philby. (The National Archives summary of the security files on her conclude that “it was almost certainly she who first talent spotted Philby”.) This came to light when MI5 documents were declassified a few years ago – though those shown in the film do not seem to prove her role beyond doubt and other sources seem to suggest that it was in fact Philby’s wife Litzi Friedmann who proposed him.
For photohistorians she is perhaps best known for her photographs of children receiving ultraviolet light treatment for rickets. The National Galleries of Scotland had a major exhibition of her work in 2013 which proposed her as “one of the most significant documentary photographers working in Britain in the 1930s and 1940s.” I would have thought that that was putting it a bit high. She is not mentioned in either of the two standard works on my shelves, The Oxford Companion To The Photograph nor in A New History Of Photography (ed. Michel Frizot), although her brother Wolfgang Suschitsky is twice. It seems that her left-wing sympathies, and suspicion about her connections to the Soviet security services, led MI5 to lean heavily on Fleet Street not to use her work. Perhaps that is more the reason for her absence from standard works on photographic history: MI5 made sure she didn’t get the breaks. (Good job that things like that can’t happen now, eh?)
The film was interesting though jumbled, I thought, and needed a stronger editor. She never really emerges distinctly and seems to have been a delphic figure: she is described by contemporaries as being both ‘melancholic’ and ‘attractive and vivacious’. Perhaps that made her a good agent. From memory, the film makes no direct quotation from any of letters she may have written or from any conversations with her bar one with her brother which seems to have been recorded somehow by MI5.
As a result of the film and the book of her life that preceded it (both the work of her great nephew Peter Stephan Jungk) and a study of her photography “Edith Tudor Hart: In The Shadow Of Tyranny” by Duncan Forbes she may be emerging from the penumbra into which she had retreated historically. It will be interesting to see what happens next. What we have here after all is a fascinating psychological split. A spy is above all an actor in events and a putative manipulator of them. Photographers are quite different: they are observers or reporters of events from which they must maintain a distance. Could she have been both?
From what I have seen of them, her photos seem accomplished and powerful and quite clearly focused on the poverty and inequality of the day. Yet this work seems to play second fiddle to her role at the centre of the scandal that continues to mesmerise the British establishment to this day. Perhaps that is because it is easier in the current political climate for the national psyche to cast a female left-wing foreigner in the role of spy and traitor than in that of a committed reporter of the social issues that continue to bedevil us .