The Truth about the "Hollywood Ten"

In 1947, the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) began a series of official inquiries into the penetration of the Hollywood film industry by the American Communist Party (CPUSA).

Major public hearings were held in 1947 and 1951, with smaller hearings throughout the mid-1950s. In the course of these inquiries, dozens of “friendly” Hollywood witnesses denounced hundreds of people as secret members of the Communist Party, while dozens of “unfriendly” witnesses refused to discuss their politics with the Committee. Those who were either publicly or privately denounced as members of the CPUSA found it almost impossible to get employment in the motion-picture industry for at least for a decade.

The most famous victims of the resulting blacklist were the original group of “unfriendly” witnesses, known as the “Unfriendly Ten” or “Hollywood Ten.” These individuals–mostly screenwriters– refused to give political information about themselves before HUAC in October 1947.1

The blacklist functioned in part officially, as demonstrated by a joint public announcement of the motion picture firms in November 1947 that henceforth no studio would knowingly employ any member of the Communist Party, or the members of any other group which advocated the overthrow of the United States government by revolution.

The blacklist also operated unofficially, through instruments such as the irresponsible red-baiting newsletter Red Channels, which named whole swaths of people as subversives. This, for example, ruined the career of the left-wing but non-Communist actress Marsha Hunt. 2

The blacklist also often functioned in secret: jobs just dried up. As a result, “fixers” emerged to get people unofficially “pardoned” by anti-Communist organizations and film industry managers, therefore making them employable again. One famous “fixer” was the fiercely anti-Communist actor Ward Bond. 3

“Fronts” arose as well in the form of people offering scripts ghost-written by blacklisted screenwriters in exchange for official credit for the script and often a cut of the payment. One famous example of such a “front” was Philip Yordan, himself a quite famous screenwriter. 4

Some film careers were totally destroyed as a result of the blacklist system. For instance, Mickey Knox, “the next John Garfield,” was a rising star of the late 1940s, turning in a star performance in the great gangster film White Heat (1949). If you have never heard of Mickey Knox, well, that is the point. Many other careers suffered severe setbacks, such as that of actor Howard Da Silva. 5

Actors and directors suffered more severely than screenwriters because they could not act or direct under assumed names, whereas screenwriters could use the “front” system, which allowed the most talented of them to continue to write. The CPUSA, however, had made its largest inroads in Hollywood among screenwriters, and many screenwriters’ careers suffered greatly or ended.

It is generally not a good idea to attack professional writers because they tend to write, and to write well, to get in the last word. This has certainly been the case with the blacklist. None of the HUAC committee or staff (which originally included Congressman Richard M. Nixon) has written memorably on the events of 1947 and 1951, let alone on the later, smaller investigations.

A few of those who appeared as “friendly witnesses” before HUAC, such as directors Edward Dmytryk and Elia Kazan, and actor Sterling Hayden. have written important memoirs, often defending their conduct and sometimes expressing self-doubt. 6

But such figures are far outnumbered by the self-justifying and bitter memoirs of those who were denounced: Norma Barzman; Walter Bernstein; Alvah Bessie; Herbert Biberman; Conrad Bromberg; Lester Cole; Lillian Hellman; Howard Koch; Ring Lardner, Jr. (and now his daughter Kate); Donald Ogden Stewart; Dalton Trumbo; and Ella Winter. 7

The publication of these works, and more fundamentally the cultural shift in Hollywood to domination by a bien peasant Left that started around 1960 and accelerated in the 1970s, has led to the lionization of the Unfriendly Ten as American “rebels” and martyred “non-conformists.”

Meanwhile, the anger within the current filmmaking elite at those who originally “named names” in the 1940s and 1950s has been unremitting. A now unalterable view of what occurred is held by people who have little knowledge of what it actually meant in the 1940s to be a Communist; that is, a Stalinist. Two examples demonstrate the current political situation.

But some movies really WERE subversive, COMMIE movies, such as "OUR DAILY BREAD". "STREET SCENE" is another one. And there are some VERY pro Union anti-corporation ones as well, passed off as "comedies", but you would have to be a blithering idiot to not see what was being peddled in these films, unlike the "bash the idiot rich" comedies, which were really just set pieces of a certain genre, that weren't subversive at all.

Good point.They seem to have been prosecuted for their IDEAS rather than subversive ACTIONS.I don't think any of them were involved with Hiss or the Rosenbergs.
Commies or not,their films were a damn sight better than that unadulterated GARBAGE that spews out of Hollywood today by writers and actors FAR more harmful to the health of American culture than the Hollwood Ten ever produced.

Again it was the spirit of the time. Our Daily Bread was made by a German emigre named F.W. Murnau who has never been known as any sort of subversive. 'Street Scene' was made by King Vidor...a conservative. He went on to make a film version of The Fountainhead.

Thanks for the suggestion and IF I see that book, I'll get it. I pocked up an artmload of great books, when we were there last fall. The store has a HUGE remainder stock and I walked away with something like 12 books, for what I would have paid for two books, at regular price. One of which was an Edward Gorey bio/set of interviews, that I hadn't even know existed and was delighted to find. :-)

Well, I'm afraid that all of my tales will be rather mundane; perhaps even slightly banal. There are several really marvelous homemade ice cream shops down there, that have spectacular ice cream! One flavor I really loved, was a coconut with fresh pineapple chunks, served in a 1/2 dipped in dark chocolate cone. YUMMY!

And then there's our favorite Italian haute cuisine restaurant, that serves THE best ever Tiera Missou (sp?), I have ever had outside of Europe. My favorite entre there, is shrimp wrapped in bacon, in a wonderful light, smoky sauce served with a medley of crisp, slightly sauteed in olive oil veggies.

"there is good stuff out there today.You just have to look for it"
True,I did like Sideways and Melinda and Melinda.And don't sleep on Downfall-superb German film.
I am talking about the junk produced for the IQ of 80 jackasses who need a laugh track to tell them whats funny.

>>>I don't quite follow this.

You don't follow what I posted, because, you edited my comment. If you read my full comment, It will make more sense. That makes your comments from your post 100 moot to what I said in my post 94.

If you can't follow what I said in post 94...well, sorry, we can't communicate.

Yes, I know, but "OUR DAILY BREAD" is a paean to Communist principles.

"STREET SCENE" was a play first and Vidor didn't write it. But it certainly is, IMO, a subversive movie and one which laid the foundations for the criminal as the "poor victim of society" !

King Vidor made many a great movie, was the first white to make an all black movie, for whites ( unlike the "race films", which were made by blacks FOR blacks and many of which are excellent, BTW ), and "THE FOUNTAINHEAD" isn't one of his best; but then, neither is the book any good.

It just comes down to a basic disagreement about how much of a threat, if any, left wing film makers posted back then. I don't think most artists were rubbing their hands together waiting for the revolution. But I respect your opinion.

>>>And there are some VERY pro Union anti-corporation ones as well, passed off as "comedies", but you would have to be a blithering idiot to not see what was being peddled in these films....

Have you also picked up on the 'reverse' propaganda peddled from WalMart? Ironically, that is Hillary's staging ground.

She has manufactured, 'a reason' for America to support Unions from her own piggy bank.

We all know Unions are the first to be infiltrated...

Enter her baby, WalMart. The employees are under paid, as demonstrated from the lawsuit the illegal alien night clean up crew won (that was staged).

That was to rally support that WalMart should have unions so employees aren't taken for granted, because, America loves to pay 30% less on products...

(just my translation of the intent)

Yes, I know, but "OUR DAILY BREAD" is a paean to Communist principles.

Again so was 'The Grapes of Wrath'. In many ways we are much more ecomonically conservative today then we were then.

STREET SCENE" was a play first and Vidor didn't write it. But it certainly is, IMO, a subversive movie and one which laid the foundations for the criminal as the "poor victim of society" !

That was part of a larger climate of thought at the time which included novels like Sister Carrie (as early as 1900) and 'Native Son'.In the latter, Richard Wright created a black teenager who kills a white woman in cold blood and then demands the reader understand the action as an inevitable product of his surroundings. What's ironic is that Wright later left the Communists and wrote anti communist essays.

Ok, I get from your post that your house is as bad as mine with books spilling over in every room!

I failed to mention that Splinter Cell is a Bill Clancey book.

And I love ice cream! My kids love it more now because we make it. They get to design their flavors.
Mediterranean is my favorite food. I will proudly put up my Momma Nome's recipes against any restaurant. But I would rather enjoy eating at anyone's restaurant that doesn't have a human habit trail...and no children complaining that their is a colored herb in their dish.

So yes, I want stories! I'm pathetic! All my movies open with the disney castle!

Yes, " GRAPES OF WRATH" is a detestable movie! O should have included that one as well. Thanks for adding it.

"SISTER CARRIE" didn't do the "society's victim" bit and was quite scandalous. The movie, made much later and "cleaned up" , also earned some condemnation.

But don't forget that Clifford Odets and many card carrying Commies came to Hollywood out of the extremely Commie, WPA subsidize GROUP THEATRE, in N.Y. and just continued pushing the envelope.

GAG.........I hated "NATIVE SON", which I was forced to read, for a college American lit class. :-(

No. Now you diminished my remarks. You cannot put on a shelf and walk away from what I said to avoid in engaging with my points and dismiss them. I see you engaging on this thread and you are engaging without any influence from my points. So in other words you have dismissed me!

If you had listened to anyting I posted, you would not be engaging with nopardons right now. Because she got on the ground with you. This tells me you are here with another agenda. I don't think you know what that agenda is. You have no perception for it. You just know you are to argue for what ever subject you were assigned.

Well, if you would like to prove me wrong, go back and read my posts. If you would like to ping me as per my specific posts, you are welcomed. If you wish to highlight a sentence and run with it elsewhere, I will not be here to respond. I was very clear on what I said. My posts speak for themselves.

You...well, you have an assignment.

I understand perfectly well about what marketing is. If you think that there was a Fabian mentality amongst certain writers of the time I wouldn't be inclined to disagree. I just don't think that alone (unpleasant ideas) merits being hauled in front of Congress and/or run out of your profession or country. Is that an adequate grasp of the issue?

As for my 'agenda' if you look at my posting history, I consistently defend American filmmaking from people who diminish its considerable contributions to American cultural life.

Nope. Now you went for a brand versus the marketing intent. You did not understand at all what I posted. If you did, you would have understood my point on drawing in.

You have no clue.

Nope. Now you went for a brand versus the marketing intent. You did not understand at all what I posted. If you did, you would have understood my point on drawing in.

Let that serve as a lesson then for aiming for clarity over rhetoric in your writing. Please point out which post you summarizes this elusive insight that I'm denied. And see if you can leave out the ad hominem attacks. :-)

I'm sorry, I thought you got this in freep mail. Pay attention to the Clinton Lawfirm being the 'lawyer' and the Clinton, BOD refereence.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1385103/posts

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.