She smoked through interviews like they were interrogations, wielding her pen with the precision of a surgeon and the fury of a revolutionary.
She liked to describe herself as a journalist, never a writer. Yet Oriana Fallaci’s sentences burned with the moral intensity of literature and the rigorous momentum of investigative reporting. She was small, fierce, and unrelenting, with a hawkish gaze that flickered between vulnerability and contempt. When she entered a room, it was as if a general had arrived, though she carried no weapons but words.
Born in Florence in 1929, Fallaci became one of the most formidable interviewers of the twentieth century, carving into the powerful with a ferocity that unnerved even those accustomed to deference. Henry Kissinger called his interview with her “the most disastrous conversation I ever had with the press.” The Shah of Iran ended his by declaring, with unusual candor, that women were too emotional to govern. Muammar Gaddafi stormed out mid-question. Her adversarial method did not arise from an abstract ideal of journalism but from something rawer: her youth in the anti-fascist resistance, her family’s imprisonment and torture by Mussolini’s police, and her early realization that truth was rarely volunteered—it had to be seized.
In the final decades of her life, Fallaci’s voice grew angrier, more embattled, sometimes disturbingly so. Her polemics against Islam after September 11 shocked even some of her admirers. Yet behind the vitriol lay the same unyielding refusal to look away from what frightened her. She died in Florence in 2006, unrepentant and unbowed, having spent her life forcing the world to meet her unsparing gaze.
Life in the trenches
Oriana Fallaci was born on 29 June 1929 into a working-class Florentine family steeped in anti-fascist activism. Her father, Edoardo, was a cabinet-maker and a member of Giustizia e Libertà, the liberal-socialist resistance movement. By the age of ten, she was serving as a courier for the partisans under the code name Emilia. In later years, she would recall carrying grenades beneath her clothes, slipping through Nazi checkpoints with the terror and pride of a child playing at adulthood.
After the war, Fallaci studied medicine briefly but gravitated towards journalism, first writing gossip columns to support herself, then crime reporting, and eventually political analysis. Her rise was meteoric. By her late twenties, she was covering Hollywood for L’Europeo, interviewing stars with the same ruthless precision she would later apply to statesmen. Her early books, such as Il sesso inutile (1961), were travelogues examining the condition of women in the Arab world, India, and Asia, works that combined reportage, memoir, and polemic in a style unmistakably her own.
The defining crucible of her career came in Vietnam. Arriving as a war correspondent in 1967, she was wounded in Saigon during a firefight, her breastbone shattered by shrapnel. The experience left her physically weakened but morally inflamed. In Niente e così sia (“Nothing, and So Be It,” 1969), she offered not an embedded chronicle of troop movements but a fierce existential meditation on war’s absurdities and brutalities. “I have never learned to kill time without injuring eternity,” she wrote, paraphrasing Thoreau, capturing her abiding impatience with euphemism and passivity.
Conversations with power
Her interviews became legendary precisely because they were not conversations but confrontations. In Intervista con la storia (“Interview with History,” 1974), she assembled her most famous encounters with political titans: Kissinger, Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, the Shah, Yasser Arafat, Gaddafi. She prepared with obsessive thoroughness, mastering their histories, speeches, and weaknesses. Her questions were long, polemical, often ending with a barbed provocation. She told Kissinger he seemed like the cowboy in a Western who rides off alone, leaving corpses behind. He agreed, apparently flattered, only to realize later the moral indictment embedded within her metaphor.
Fallaci insisted her style was not a performance of aggression for its own sake but a moral duty to force the powerful to answer for their choices. She believed the press had become too servile, too deferential. In her view, an interview was war by other means. Her success derived not merely from her fearlessness but from a paradoxical empathy—she understood the insecurities and vanities of her subjects, luring them into candor with flattery before turning the knife. They rarely saw it coming.
Her methods were not universally admired. Critics accused her of monologuing, of making interviews about herself. She shrugged off such complaints, arguing that journalism’s task was to reveal a moral truth rather than feign neutrality. In this, she belonged to a tradition of engaged European intellectuals who rejected the Anglo-American ideal of impartial observation. To her, to stand aside was to collaborate with injustice.
From love to rage
In 1973, while covering the Greek military junta, Fallaci fell in love with Alexandros Panagoulis, a poet and revolutionary who had attempted to assassinate dictator Georgios Papadopoulos. He had been tortured brutally in prison and was, by her account, half-mad with idealism and pain. Their relationship, chronicled in Un Uomo (“A Man,” 1979), was tempestuous and ultimately tragic. Panagoulis died in a suspicious car accident in 1976. Fallaci believed he had been murdered by remnants of the junta. The book is part biography, part love letter, and part political manifesto, seething with grief and reverence for a man who refused to bow to tyranny.
Her final phase as a public intellectual was marked by controversy bordering on notoriety. After the September 11 attacks, she published La rabbia e l’orgoglio (“The Rage and The Pride,” 2001), a scathing polemic against Islam, mass immigration, and what she saw as Europe’s cowardly appeasement. Her critics denounced the book as racist and inflammatory; admirers hailed its clarity and courage. In subsequent works such as La forza della ragione (“The Force of Reason,” 2004), her tone grew apocalyptic, driven by fear of cultural surrender. She received multiple lawsuits for incitement to hatred, none of which she regretted. Even friends felt her writing had grown unbalanced, though its lucidity and rhetorical power remained intact.
Literary and cultural influence
Though Fallaci disdained the label of literary writer, her prose possessed an unmistakable artistry. Her reportage blurred genres, fusing novelistic description with philosophical reflection and fierce polemic. She was never content to describe what she saw; she sought to unearth what it meant. Her influence on Italian letters is profound, shaping generations of journalists who admired her courage, though few matched her voice’s merciless music.
Academically, her work has been studied in fields as varied as gender studies, Middle Eastern politics, and Italian literature. Feminist scholars debate her legacy—she was one of Italy’s most prominent female journalists, yet her later writings were scathing about multicultural feminism, which she believed ignored misogyny within Islamic societies. Literary critics praise her unadorned style and narrative tension, noting her ability to compress complex histories into moments of moral reckoning.
Her political influence is more ambivalent. In the 2000s, European far-right politicians cited her polemics approvingly, much to her dismay. She insisted she was neither conservative nor reactionary but a radical liberal defending Western freedoms. In truth, her fierce individuality defied categorization, though it lent itself easily to appropriation.
Method and meaning
Fallaci’s enduring significance lies less in her political positions, some of which were undeniably xenophobic, than in her method and sensibility. She brought an existential urgency to journalism, rooted in her early experience of resistance. To her, history was never an abstraction. It was lived, suffered, and fought for. Her interviews remain models of preparation, psychological acuity, and moral confrontation. Her war reportage still sears with its refusal to romanticize violence. Her polemics, however divisive, force readers to examine their certainties.
In a 1972 lecture, she warned young journalists against the comfort of cynicism. “You must rage,” she said, “rage against the dying of the light, like Dylan Thomas wrote. Otherwise, you become part of the darkness.” It is a line that captures both her power and her peril. Her refusal to moderate her voice made her an oracle of inconvenient truths but also led her into rhetorical darkness, where rage itself became the light she clung to.
At her funeral in Florence, there were politicians and generals, colleagues and enemies, all gathered to honor a woman who had spent her life interrogating power without fear of consequence. Her coffin was draped in the Italian flag. As it passed through the streets, some wept, others applauded. For Oriana Fallaci, there was no greater tribute. To be loved and hated with equal fervor was proof that she had mattered.
0 comments