Posted on 04/18/2005 10:47:45 AM PDT by Liz
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.
Long read---rest at link.
"The Flight of the Phoenix" Bullitt....many others
I didn't say there were NO good films. Just weak compared to the 1950s. All the great studio system directors were aging and in decline. The result was plastic films from great directors like 'Man's Favorite Sport', 'Torn Curtain' 'The Sandpiper'. Those three from men who had given us 'Red River', 'Vertigo' and 'Meet Me in St Louis'! But even the great popular successes of the early to mid 60s like 'Charade' and 'The Great Escape' strike me as stiff and and uninspired. Trivia: The Pawnbroker was the first mainstream American film with nudity.
But Paul Robeson NEVER gave up his Stalinist support. Okay, he wasn't a writer, but I just thought I'd throw that into the mix. LOL
Neither can I...which is why I skeptical of that figure. :-)
Off to bed. We'll duke it out tomorrow: )
Nighty night.........talk to you when I get back. :-)
No he didn't. I mentioned him earlier. A brilliant man with absolutely lamentable politics. What a waste of talent!
"BULLIT" ??????????????????? :-(
What about "WAIT UNTIL DARK" ( though the play was much better ) and "THE TATTOOED MAN" and "SEVEN DAYS IN MAY" and "THE WORLD OF SUZIE WONG" and even "BAREFOOT IN THE PARK" ?
Maybe not, but Bill Buckley wrote one, The Committee and Its Critics, that the left has never been able to refute.
Yes, he wasted a great amount of time and his talent, being a quite rabid Stalinist, to the end of his days.
It mirrored the life of the existential detective, concommitant with the downfall of civilized society very well. If people watch it for the chase scene, so be it.
It is an awesome movie. Very well written, a great story. I just saw it this past weekend and was very impressed.
And, imagine this (!)no sex or violence or nudity.
I'm getting tired.
Charade is pure class from beginning to end.
I learn every day.
I'm off to bed. See you tomorrow.
I am considering doing my "America and the World since 1930" research paper on the McCarthy hearings etc. based on hearing a couple years ago new documents provide support for the idea that communists were infiltrating the govt.
If anybody has some good articles on the subject, scholarly in nature, I would appreciate it. But, don't do a Google search or something; I am just wanting anything you already have you think is good, not for you to do the internet search for me.
BTW, I am aware the the HUAC and McCarthy were totally different things, but if anybody has articles on either one, but especially McCarthy and the Senate, I would appreciate a link.
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.