Foreman on the set of High Noon.
Posted on 07/23/2005 4:50:34 AM PDT by Liz
Foreman on the set of High Noon.
It's been 50 years since the release of High Noon, a film that became an American classic not only for stylistic innovations, but as an allegory about the McCarthy era.
A documentary scheduled by PBS for September looks at the Hollywood figures behind High Noon and draws explicit parallels between the movie's sheriff who stands alone against the forces of evil and the screenwriter, the late Carl Foreman. During production of the western, Foreman was subpoenaed by the House Un-American Activities Committee and subsequently blacklisted.
"Darkness at High Noon: The Carl Foreman Documents," written and directed by Lionel Chetwynd, settles an old score between Foreman and his former business partner, Stanley Kramer.
Chetwynd asserts in the two-hour program that Kramer betrayed Foreman by severing their business ties and removing his credit as producer of High Noon, instead of fighting Hollywood's blacklist.
The primary source document is Foreman's letter to a New York Times film critic that details his creative role in High Noon.
"One of the main reasons the blacklist worked so well was not only because of the evils of studio chiefs and politicians," said Chetwynd, who produced the documentary in homage to his friend and mentor, Foreman. Though Chetwynd is known as an outspoken conservative in Hollywood and has produced right-wing issue programs for PBS, he focuses on the tragic consequences of McCarthyism. The blacklist "created a class of unprotected citizens," he says, and was enforced by those who still retained society's protection. "This was something we did to ourselves."
"Darkness at High Noon" has already drawn a vigorous rebuttal from Karen Kramer, who defends her late husband's creative claim to the film and his efforts to redress the injustices of the blacklist. Stanley Kramer, who died last year, used films to address social issues, and hired blacklisted writers and actors, said Kramer.
"They're trying to rewrite history and I'm going to stand up and say, 'This is not true.'"
She has assembled evidence to refute the documentary and mounted a publicity campaign that generated stories in the Hollywood trades, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times. Kramer also appealed unsuccessfully to PBS and CPB to address inaccuracies in the film or consider the legal ramifications. She contends that "Darkness at High Noon" unfairly paints her husband as a villain and gives Foreman undue credit for High Noon.
By presenting the film, PBS is neglecting its mission to present work that "provides multiple points of view" and treats "complex social issues completely," she said.
"Darkness at High Noon" is a "real one-sided hatchet-job and even PBS knows on proof that it is not correct," she said. "They are still cavalierly going to run it anyway."
Kramer asserts that Chetwynd is pursuing a political agenda with "Darkness at High Noon." "All of the Republicans in the film come off extremely well, but the leading liberal in our industry then was Stanley, and he takes the fall for everything that went wrong for Carl Foreman," she said.
"This movie defends an ex-commie who beats up on HUAC, and you know what? I'm taking a lot of heat from the hard right for it," said Chetwynd, whose last PBS series National Desk was attacked by a coalition of liberals as right-wing agitprop disguised as public affairs reporting.
The politics of the blacklist are more complex than today's conservative-liberal spectrum. "Hollywood still regards the blacklist as a sexy issue, and it helps determine your political orientation," said Tony Kahn, the pubradio newsman who produced a public radio series on the blacklisting of his father, screenwriter Gordon Kahn.
Hollywood players "like to think of themselves as liberals, but most of this happened because liberal people got so scared that they caved in."
"The truth is there is no one around who really remembers and can speak to it first-hand," acknowledged Jacoba Atlas, PBS's co-chief programmer on the West Coast. The blacklist era has "too many gray areas" for people to be able to plant their feet and say definitively, "this is the truth and this is not."
Left-wing journalist Victor Navasky, publisher of the Nation and author of Naming Names, a 1980 book on the blacklist, interviewed both men about how and why they split after Foreman was subpoenaed. He told the New York Times that "Darkness at High Noon" seemed "one-sided" because it "makes a villain out of Stanley Kramer, when it was more complicated than that."
"The real moral of this episode," Navasky said, "is the way in which the Hollywood blacklist and McCarthyism caused people of goodwill like Foreman and Kramer--both of whom made great movies and had decent politics--to do things they would rather not have done."
PBS reexamined the documentary this spring and required Chetwynd to substantiate every statement.
"Lionel feels very strongly--and he's the filmmaker here--that Kramer made a huge ethical misjudgment with what he did with High Noon," Atlas said. "He feels he has backed up every single statement that needs to be made, and that he doesn't need to do two sides of the story."
Chetwynd said he is pleased that, after rigorous inspection, "PBS is supporting this version completely and will air it as delivered." CPB "has been fantastic and incredibly supportive," he said. The corporation matched PBS's $487,000 grant for the documentary, according to CPB.
"We have never, never, never accumulated as much material as we have on this," said Chetwynd, who executive produced the documentary with Norman Powell.
"We knew within the community it would be carefully scrutinized . . . . We're proud to say it has been well-received within the Hollywood community." The film was enthusiastically received during an April screening at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art.
Producers used sources with direct first-person knowledge of the events in question, a criterion that disqualifies Karen Kramer as an interview subject because she married Stanley Kramer a decade later. Other than one anecdote in which Kramer and Foreman encounter each other years later and don't speak, Chetwynd said,
"no one is allowed to speak about anything other than what they observed first hand."
PBS doesn't plan extensive promotion for "Darkness at High Noon," Atlas said, but the film will generate publicity on its own. "It will be a very controversial film. I think you'll hear about it from both sides." She hopes that Karen Kramer will appear on Charlie Rose or Now with Bill Moyers to refute how her husband is ortrayed.
"If I were doing a news program, I'd book her and Lionel," said Atlas, a former CNN producer. "I think it would make for an interesting discussion."
Chetwynd
Karen Kramer is defending the liberal reputation of her late husband, right.
==========================================
To Current's home page (links)
Earlier news: When Chetwynd's National Desk went off the air two years ago, PBS said it planned to continue working with him.
Earlier news: Tony Kahn's blacklist drama for public radio told a story close to home: his father's.
Web page posted June 5, 2002 Current The biweekly newspaper that covers public broadcasting
A service of Current Publishing Committee, Washington, D.C.
E-mail to webmaster (202) 463-7055
Copyright 2002
Proves liberals can too hold a grudge.
This should be turned into a movie:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/sim-explorer/explore-items/-/1893554961/0/101/1/none/purchase/ref%3Dpd%5Fsxp%5Fr0/103-8520355-7773452
I reckon it never will be, for some strange reason...
One of the enlightening postscripts to the Foreman story: when the blacklisted Foreman finally came back to the US, he ran into John Wayne in a restaurant---Wayne was cordial and embraced Foreman even though Wayne was a dedicated McCarthy-era conservative. OTOH, when Foreman ran into Kramer in an elevator, Kramer looked right past him, and uttered not a word.
That would be interesting---heheh---watch the libs run scared.
Yeah, I did a thread on that book. I believe there's also a book out there centering on conservative Hollywood.
What's true, or not true, is subjective because of the time span between the HUAC hearings and now, as well as the people who are still alive to tell their story.
The fall of the Soviet Union did leave behind a lot of documents from that time relevant to the HUAC hearings. Add to that liberal Hollywood's fascination with communism at the time, and it's hard to tell what is or isn't "truth".
As far as PBS goes, PBS has a liberal bent and any documentary it shows is suspect in advance.
"The fall of the Soviet Union did leave behind a lot of documents from that time relevant to the HUAC hearings. Add to that liberal Hollywood's fascination with communism at the time, and it's hard to tell what is or isn't "truth"."
I would disagree that it is hard to tell what is or isn't the truth...as far as I can see, the the release of documents related to the Venona Project have pretty much vindicated Whittaker Chambers, HUAC and Joseph McCarthy, and nailed Alger Hiss, the Rosenbergs, Latimore and others.
And yet, many STILL cling to the fantasy the Hiss was innocent, the Rosenbergs were innocent victims, and McCarthy was an evil man.
McCarthy was a genuine American Hero who gave his life and reputation in the service of his country. He should be exhumed and taken to Arlington National Cemetary and interred with full honors, his reputation restored. He can rest next to my dad.
The Venona papers uncovered a lot from that era, and beyond.
However, liberal's penchant for reinventing themselves, their massive egos, and their obsession with refurbishing their tarnished reputations all have to be factored into the latter day retelling of the McCarthy era.
McCarthy was without a doubt doing the right thing---however, judging by the way history characterizes him----he went about it in the wrong way.
At hearings, he waved papers around, injudiciously named names without having proof, and so on. He was also not a very good subject for the TV camera---at a time when hearings were first televised, I believe.
McCarthy's worst move was giving the calculated liberals plenty of ammo to denigrate his activities. He had no sense of the collateral effect.
Nevertheless, he did perform a public service outing the libs.
I maintain McCarthy's biggest contribution to history was to allow the libs to be seen as vile, vengeful individuals.
They were not aggrieved b/c they were outed for their communist leanings---they were proud of being lefties----but b/c the everlasting view of them is as hateful human beings pushing an anti-American agenda. This they can never forgive.
Is there much material in the Venona papers regarding Soviet support for Hollywood? There sure is plenty to support McCarthy's charges against many in FDR's administration, and the Dem Party of the time in general.
And this rant makes the familiar mistake of vaguely tying McCarthy to HUAC, which is absurd, as he was a Senator, not a House Representative. If they're confusing things as basic as that, what else do they have wrong? "Much," seems likely.
McCarthy and HUAC????. The Hollywood Ten were brought before HUAC in 1947 - BEFORE McCarthy was elected to the House. McCarthyisn and HUAC are not the same thing. HUAC also convicted Alger Hiss and several others.
This is all documented in Ann Coulter's book "Treason."
The blacklist brought out the worst in people; the poisons of political partisanship and the cowardice when one's livelihood is threatened.
All these events related to outing Communists telescope into a single mis en scene when looking back on history.
Everything they did or said was related to protecting their well-paid positions.
These guys were all children of the '30s - when people were fighting much different battles. They - correctly for the most part - identified their enemies as anti-union bigots. Only the really clever lefties saw the evil in Russian communism and these guys weren't that clever.
But then only the really clever righties saw the evil in Hitler - until he declared war on us. Even Churchill was pro-Hitler until he realized that the latter aimed for European domination, not just the conquest of Russia.
At the time? Do you go to the movies much?
I laughed so hard after reading that---when caught with their pants down---the lefties whined they had no idea Communism was to be America's great enemy. As if the Commie rhetoric they ate up gave them nary a clue.
What the libs refuse to admit is that the Democrats or liberals used the HUAC to further their own agenda, as often as the Republicans, and not necessarily for altruistic purposes.
My own grandfather was a Democrat politician who refused to tow the party line, so when he came up for re-election, his opponent in the primary, accused him of being a communist. It was an easy mark, he was a former union officer. The only evidence against him was that he was seen reading the headlines on a communist newspaper at a news stand. The FBI ruined his life and even attended his funeral.
Thanks for the realtime input.
The after-effects of the era continue to roll on.
It's been postulated that there are 1001 stories that emanate from the period---none of them clearly black or white---as you so poignantly illustated.
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.