Strategic Communication Senior Lecturer, Melbourne: Australia.
Nuclear fears of annihilation haunted the 1950s. This depressing view of world destruction continued in George Pal’s next film: When Worlds Collide. Many science fiction films had dealt with the destruction or breakdown of society, but the physical end of the planet was virtually a new area. Cecil B. DeMille had originally been slated for the film in a much earlier period. The rights to the story by Philip Wylie and Edwin Balmer were originally bought in 1933 by Paramount, when director DeMille was planning a related project called “The End of the World.” DeMille had hoped to rush the project into production after filming wrapped on This Day and Age (1933), but the script was never even written and the studio scrapped the project.
In When Worlds Collide scientists discovered that a new sun and its planet were spinning across the galaxy toward earth. The planet would move close to the earth, causing tidal waves and mass destruction, and then the new sun would engulf the earth. The only hope for civilisation was a small spacecraft which could hop planets just before the fatal collision. The film opened with biblical saying:
And God looked upon the earth and behold it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth … And God said unto Noah, ‘The end of flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and , behold I will destroy them with the earth…
This was remarkably close to the vision of evangelist Billy Graham who, after President Truman had announced a nuclear weapon had been exploded in the Soviet Union, had preached in 1949 that the choice for America was now between religious revival and nuclear judgement. The choice was between western culture founded on religion, and communism which was against all religion. The country had abandoned the ten commandments and faced judgement for its misdeeds. In 1949, he delivered a sermon on the fate of the United States which rang with biblical doom.
Let us look for a moment at the political realm. Let’s see what is happening – not only in the city of Los Angeles, but in the western world. The world is divided into two sides. ON the one side we see so-called Western culture. Western culture and its fruit had its foundation in the bible, the Word of God, and in the revivals of he Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Communism on the other hand, had decided against God, against Christ, against the bible, against all religion. Communism is not only an economic interpretation of life – Communism is a religion that is directed and motivated by the Devil himself who has declared war against almighty God. Do you know that the Fifth Columnists, called Communists, are more rampant in Los Angeles than any other city in America? We need a revival.
Just as God had destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, Pompeii, and the Roman empire, he would destroy the United States, and Los Angeles in particular, if it strayed any longer or further from the moral path. The nuclear threat was a biblical judgement for moral failings. These speeches were the catalyst which launched Graham to become a nationwide media celebrity.
Graham’s apocalyptic vision of nuclear judgement resonated throughout When Worlds Collide. The conclusion of the film showed the earth burning as it approached the surface of he new sun. Nuclear-like explosions ripped from its surface as it was absorbed. This image must have terrified the American public of the 1950s with its connotations of nuclear destruction. The most chilling part of When Worlds Collide was the inevitable nature of the destruction of the earth, just as the cold war promised an inevitable nuclear conflagration. The film may have reassured an American public at one level by showing that life would continue in some form after nuclear destruction. However, with its biblical judgement of corruption and the inevitable nature of the world’s destruction, it was an uncomfortable film to watch.
 The theme had been used before in a film called The Comet (1910) and two German films Himmelskibet (1917) and Verdens Undergang (1916). The two German films probably reflected some of the gloom as the First World War dragged on. A few science fiction films saw the collapse of society such as the British film Things to Come (1936). See the introduction to Phil Hardy, (ed.). Science Fiction: The Complete Film Sourcebook, William Morrow, New York, 1984 for a discussion of the trend.
 Mark Silk, Spiritual Politics: Religion and America since World War II, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1988, p. 65.
 William Graham, Revival in Our Time: The Story of Billy Graham Evangelistic Campaign Evangelistic Campaigns, Including Six Of His Sermons, 2nd edn enl. Van Kampen Press, Wheaton, Illinois, 1950, pp. 72-73.
Strategic Communication Senior Lecturer, Melbourne: Australia.
Invaders filled the screens of cinemas and drive-ins across the United States in the 1950s. Aliens blasted ray guns, rose from the depths of the sea, took over human bodies, mutated in atomic testing sites, flew flying saucers, lurked in swamps and wasted cities in their wrath. Many films critics have seen the alien invasion films as representing American fears of communist invasion and subversion. The themes of these films clustered around fears of communist military strength. The United States had both the biggest economy and enormous military powers, yet it found itself threatened by the USSR armed with nuclear weapons. Communists were seen as an evil, beyond even religious redemption, and they now possessed weapons which could destroy the United States. It was a crushing fear that haunted the 1950s. A fear that science fiction helped ease.
The sheer number of films produced means they cannot be overlooked in any survey of films dealing with communism. It has been estimated that 154 alien films were released in the United States during the 1950s. These films were not overwhelming box office success, but the fact that they enjoyed continued popularity indicates that they were striking a chord.
The most popular science fiction films of the decade in descending order (taking inflation into account) were 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea which finished fourth in 1954 making $8 million in rentals, Journey to the Centre of the Earth which finished 11th in the 1959 making $4.7 million, The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms made $2 million in 1953, The Thing finished 47th in 1951 making $1.95 million, The Day the Earth Stood Still finished 52nd in 1951 making $1.8 million, War of the Worlds made $2 million in 1953, Them! Finished 50th in 1954 making $2.2 million, When World’s Collide finished 72nd in 1951, It Came from Outer Space made $1.65 million in 1953, This Island Earth was ranked 75th in 1955 making $1.7 million, It Came from Beneath the Sea was ranked 76th in 1955, Forbidden Planet was ranked 62nd in 1956 making $1.6 million, Destination Moon was ranked 88th in 1950 making $1.3 million. Other films which made the Variety lists included The Fly (1958), Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954), The Incredible Shrinking Man (1957), Rocketship X-M (1950) and Earth Versus the Flying Saucers (1956) and Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956). The films were not an overwhelming success yet there was, nonetheless, a steady market for them.
The first successful science fiction films of the decade owed their popularity to special effects rather than tight script writing, yet there were still strong anti-communist themes. Producer George Pal’s trademark was his exceptional special effects and his first effort was an uncomplicated film called Destination Moon (1950), which focused on the first man- made trip to the moon. It was a simple story and its anti-communist message was obvious. American industry had to back a space launch to thwart any similar moves by foreign powers. General Thayer explained these ideas to a meeting of businessman called to raise money for he project.
The reason is quite simple. We are not the only ones who know that the moon can be reached. We are not the only ones who are planning to get there. The race is on. And we will win, because there is absolutely no way to stop an attack force form outer space. The first country to use the moon for the launching of missiles will control the earth. That, gentlemen, is the most important military fact of this century.
An elderly businessman stood up at the end of the Thayer’s speech and said it was the duty of business to support the venture. Control of space would mean world domination. The impact of this idea was later seen in the panic that gripped America in the wake of the Sputnik launch in 1957 as people feared nuclear weapons could be launched from space on a defenceless United States.
Destination Moon also suggested that communists were at work subverting the American space program – and by implication other industries. The moon launch project was hampered by bureaucratic obstacles and the threat of something more sinister. The scientific group received a telegram from a commission which prohibited a launch, as a protest meeting had been called to stop the launch. Jim answered that it was ‘propaganda’ and that someone with money and brains was ‘out to get us’. The underlying tone of the film was that dissent, even democratic dissent, was identical to treason when trying to stop progress. Jim’s remarkable statement about public opinion equaling propaganda reflected the blinkered approach that the authorities had in dealing with dissent. Even a protest against an atomic missile launch was organised by malevolent forces out to undermine American security. The film fitted in neatly with the studios’ anti-communist rhetoric of the early 1950s.
Rocketship X-M (1950) was made after, but was released slightly before, Destination Moon (1950). It had essentially the same idea about space travel but with a different twist. The space crew left earth, were sent off course and landed on Mars. The crew found that Mars an advanced civilization had been wiped out by nuclear warfare was now inhabited by hostile mutant aliens. The crew returned to earth to deliver a warning about nuclear warfare. Unknown World (1950) had a similar bleak message about the world’s future. Scientist Kilian believed that the world was headed for nuclear devastation and perhaps some hope lay in burrowing beneath the earth’s surface. The film began with a montage of nuclear explosions and devastation and the voice of Kilian calling for help in finding a safe and secure world. Headed by Kilian, a small party set off to dig beneath the surface, but the world they found was sterile and they were forced to return to the surface. If Kilian was correct, then there was no escape from nuclear destruction.
 Among others are Peter Biskind, Seeing is believing: How Hollywood Taught Us To Stop Worrying and Love the Fifties, Pantheon, New York, 1983 and Nora Sayre, Running Time: Films of the Cold War, Dial, New York, 1982. Not all critics share this viewpoint see Patrick Luciano, Them or Us: Archetypal Interpretations of Fifties Alien Invasion Films, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1987 for Jungian interpretation of the alien invasion cycle.
 The filmography in Luciano, Them or Us, lists 154 films, but it must be treated with caution as Luciano tends to throw in any type of related film to build up his case. The number can only be used as a guide.
 The lists were printed in Variety 4 January 1950, 3 January 1951, 2 January 1952, 7 January 1953, 6 January 1954, 5 January 1955, 25 January 1956, 2 January 1957 and 8 January 1958. The lists derive from John Fleming, ‘Science Fiction, printed in David Pirie (ed.) Anatomy of the Movies, Macmillian, New York, pp. 272 – 281, which are also based on the Variety lists.
Destination Moon, (d) George Pal, Rip Van Ronkel, Robert Heinlein, James O’Hanlon
Strategic Communication Senior Lecturer, Melbourne: Australia.
The themes raised in High Noon were also picked up by those who supported the investigations. The Bounty Hunter (1954) can be read as a pro-McCarthyite film and as rebuttal of High Noon. Randolph Scott played a bounty hunter who arrived in the frontier town of Twin Peaks on the trail of three armed robbers. The townspeople resented his appearance and some with guilty secrets left town. He had no idea who the culprits were and bided his time. The townspeople want them to leave because they don’t like the past being dug up. The people then tried to buy him off but he would not be deflected from his pursuit of the criminals. The film can be read as a defence of HUAC investigators who had to burrow into the past of respectable people to uncover their dark secrets, no matter what the cost. Some of the criminals occupied high positions. One was even sheriff, but the criminals were only able to maintain their positions by blackmail and threats. By rooting out these criminal elements, true peace was attained in the town.
Director and producer Howard Hawks and actor John Wayne were disgusted by Fred Zinneman’s High Noon and the cycle it created and set out to refute it. Some of that anger can be seen in an interview with John Wayne in 1974 when asked about High Noon screenwriter Carl Foreman:
Hawks was convinced that professional law enforcement officers would refuse help, even in a desperate situation. In High Noon, Gary Cooper rejected the help of two men who offer assistance – a drunk and a kid. The retired marshal refused to help Kane because he would be a burden. In Rio Bravo, Chance chose a drunk, a kid and a retired marshal to help him against the gunfighters. For Hawks and Wayne, authority was responsible and benign. It defended the weak and attacked the guilty and the best people could do was to simply co-operate with it. It was not to be questioned or assisted, it was simply to be obeyed.
What about Carl Foreman? I’ll tell you about Carl Foreman and his rotten High Noon. Everybody says High Noon is a great picture because Tiomkin and Grace Kelly were in it … It’s the most un-American thing I’ve ever seen in my life. The last thing is old Coop putting the United States marshall’s badge under his feet and stepping on it. I’ll never regret having helped run Foreman out of town … Here’s the church, supposed to be an American church and all the women are sitting on one side of the aisle, and all the men on the other. What kind of American church is that? And all those women are getting out there and fight those killers and all the men are afraid. What kind of Western town is that?
Wayne was mistaken about the film, Cooper never stands on the badge. The church also has men and women sitting together on both sides. These statements indicate that Wayne may have either never seen the film or not viewed it closely. Nonetheless, having seen it or not, Wayne despised the film. Hawks, on the other hand, wasn’t as violent in his denunciation of High Noon. He said in an interview about his film:
Rio Bravo was made because I didn’t like a picture called High Noon … I didn’t think a good sheriff was going to go running around town like a chicken with his head off asking for help and finally the Quaker wife had to save him. That isn’t my idea of a good western sheriff.
But Wayne and Hawks were able to have their say in the Rio Bravo (1959). In the film, John T. Chance, played by John Wayne, was the sheriff of Rio Bravo who arrested Joe, the brother of a ruthless rancher Nathan Burdette. The rancher swore that he would get his brother out of jail and began to gather an army of hired guns to do the job. In one scene Chances’ friend Pat Wheeler, played by Ward Bond, asks him if he needs help.
Suppose I got them. What would I have. Some well meaning amateurs. Most of them worried about their wives and kids. Burdette has got 30 to 40 men. All professionals. The only thing that worries them is seeing their pay … All it would be doing is making more targets to shoot at. A lot of people would get hurt. Joe Burdette isn’t worth it. He isn’t worth one of whose who’d be killed.
As a refutation of High Noon and its anti-HUAC sympathies, Rio Bravo was quite weak. The film was made long after the issues raised by the HUAC investigations were gone. If it was a rebuttal at all, it was a rebuttal on the weakest terms. Its conservative message of the responsibility of authority fitted in with many films of the right. Perhaps what made this film so popular was that these authority figures demanded that no freedoms be lost while the fight was on. It was ranked 8th in the 1959 with rentals of $5.2 million.
The persistence of the theme of the relationship between the lone sheriff figure, the violent thereat and townspeople in Westerns from 1952 until the end of the decade showed the relationship between authority and the people was an area of tremendous concern. The answers given in the films were not consistent and came from all points of the political spectrum. The films may not have provided the answers for the audience but their popularity showed that the questions about authority and dealing with threats were being asked.
 Playboy May 1974 interview by Mike Parkinson in Donald Shepherd, Robert Slatzer and Dave Grayson, Duke: The Life and Times of John Wayne, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, New York, 1983, p. 244. A careful examination of the badge throwing scene shows a second badge from an earlier take buried behind his foot. It appeared that Cooper was standing on the second badge from an earlier take. Wayne may have heard about this flaw in the film second hand which could have distorted his perception.
 Joseph McBride, Hawks on Hawks, University of California Press, London, 1982, p. 136.
Rio Bravo, (d) Howard Hawks, Jules Furtham, Leigh Brackett.
 This point is remarkably close to the position put by Mankiewicz against DeMille about the role of authority. Adding strength to Elia Kazan’s belief that it was the conservatives that defeated DeMille, rather than the left. Elia Kazan A Life, Doubleday, New York, 1988, p. 393.
Strategic Communication Senior Lecturer, Melbourne: Australia.
High Noon had many successors which took up the various themes about McCarthyism in differing ways. Riding Shotgun (1954) again looked at the political situation in allegorical terms, but with disdain for the hysteria created by McCarthy. A respected guard on the stage coach Larry Delon, played by Randolph Scott, attempted to warn the town of an impending raid on the town’s ‘Bank Club’ by a gang of criminals. Delon was almost lynched by the townspeople who believed that he was responsible for the shooting of a stagecoach. A posse was formed to chase the outlaws who were actually planning to rob the undefended town. Delon was bailed up in a building throughout the film while the town attempted to lynch him. Eventually the outlaws raided and Delon foiled the robbery and regained the town’s respect. The film was not as sharp in its criticism of the worn as in High Noon, but there were some strong scenes where Scott walked through the town with every eye on him, thinking; ‘The city had already tried and found me guilty. The film was not critical of the law enforcement agencies as the deputy Sheriff was depicted as a sensible man desperately trying to see that no one gets hurt in the town’s desire to lynch Scott.
High Noon, the film showed that the
town was willing to fight, but needed firm leadership. Without that leadership, the town could turn
into a lynch-mob and attack the innocent.
Riding Shotgun was a
conservative film that asked for respect for the traditional law enforcement,
rather than the hysteria of the mob.
not strictly a western, as it was set in contemporary America, Bad Day at Black Rock (1954) was one of
the most clear cut attacks on the McCarthyite era within the genre. Bad Day
at Black Rock was directed by John Sturges, who was one of the petitioners
for Jospeh L. Mankiewicz, and produced by Dore Schary who protested against the
Waldorf Declaration. Schary would work
on the film during the day and watch the Army-McCarthy hearings at night. It was clear that these events had an impact
of the filmmakers as the film was a concerted liberal attack on the McCarthyite
J. Macreedy, played by Spencer Tracy, was a one-armed stranger who stopped at
an isolated desert town in California.
His aim was to give to a Japanese farmer a Congressional Medal of Honor,
won by his son, who served with Macreedy during the war and saved his
life. It was the first time the train
had stopped in four years and the townspeople were clearly threatened by his
presence. Macreedy stumbled across the
fact that the town’s leader Reno, played by Robert Ryan, killed the Japanese
farmer at the outbreak of the Second World War.
He described the town as being taken over by the ‘guerillas.’ The town was aware of the crime but afraid to
fight Reno who was a power-crazed racist and considered the lynching of the
Japanese farmer to be a patriotic act.
One of his henchmen Pete Wirth, played by John Ericson, said ‘We were
drunk, patriotic drunk,’ to explain the lynching.
was the closest Hollywood got to a portrayal of Joseph McCarthy until the
depiction of the crazed Senator in The
Manchurian Candidate (1962). He
manipulated and terrified the people of the town with the crime. He described Macreedy as a ‘virus’ which had
given the town a fever and had to be destroyed.
Very similar to the way, McCarthy depicted communists as an infection of
the American political system. The
Sheriff, played by Dean Jagger, was ineffectual and complaint to Reno’s orders,
just as McCarthy blustered his way over the legal system. Others simply tried to ignore the crime and
remained in apathetic fear. When
Macreedy faced and defeated Reno, the town was forced to face the collective
guilt of their silence. The conclusion
of the film was optimistic as it showed the town could prosper again with the
departure of Reno, just as the American community had to realize the enormity
of the damage inflicted by the McCarthyite era before it could begin to move
Other films carried similar messages to High Noon throughout the 1950s. In At Gunpoint (1955) a shopkeeper played by Fred MacMurray killed a bank robber with a lucky shot. He was called a hero, but his fellow townspeople deserted him when the robbers plotted reprisals. MacMurray eventually convinced the town to fight and they defeated the outlaws when they return. In The Fastest Gun Alive (1956), the townspeople cower in a church while a gunslinger threatened to burn down the town unless their reluctant local hero cam out for a showdown. They eventually forced him out to face the villain.
The Tin Star (1957), a sheriff had to
stand up to a town turned into a lynch mob to re-establish the authority of law
and order. The prisoners inside his jail
were clearly guilty and it was certain they would be hanged or jailed. The film argued that the lynch mob was not
the answer. Only when the leader of the
lynchers was stared down, humiliated and then destroyed did peace come to the
town. If the mob was equated with
McCarthyism, the legal approach of the sheriff was the best way for American
society to go. The central figure was a
man similar to High Noon’s Will Kane
who was bitter and resentful about society but at the end of the film, he
picked up ‘the tin star’ to renew the fight against criminals. Law and order depended on the professional
pride and determination of law enforcement officers. Without them, the weak townspeople would be
at the mercy of the bandits and agitators.
The central theme of these films was that the town by its inaction or
corruption could collapse into lawlessness.
the 1950s drew to a close, director Jack Arnold made an interesting western
called No Name on the Bullet (1959)
which can be read as an anti-McCarthyite tract.
A stranger played by Audie Murphy rode into town and registered at a
hotel. He was John Gant who made his
living goading people into a fight and then killing them in self defence. His appearance caused a slow breakdown of the
town as prominent citizens remembered guilty secrets of the past and were
afraid that he has been sent to kill them.
Old antagonisms began to rise an people committed suicide or left town
or tried to bribe Gant. The films focused on what fear can do to people. If you were Gant’s target then you were
already dead. The most effective scenes
were when a banker with a guilty secret in his past attempted to buy Gant off
the trail. But Gant would not leave the
town until his intended victim was dead.
The law enforcement officers can’t stop him as he was too deadly with
the gun, and even managed to stare down the entire town when they tried to
drive him out. The atmosphere of
paranoia and fear which pervaded the film with Gant’s arrival and Murphy’s edgy
performance as Gant make it one of the most effective successors to High Noon. At the end of the film, Gant ensured that his
target was dead, but he was wounded and rode away. He could certainly return and wreck havoc
Riding Shotgun Warner, (d) Andre De Toth, Tom Blackburn.
 Dore Schary, Heyday: An Autobiography of Dore Schary,
Berkley Books, Boston, 1969, p. 273. The
Army-McCarthy hearings proved to be the end of the political career of
McCarthy. He charged the army with
tolerating communist subversion.
Televised hearings were held before the Senate Armed Forces Committee
which left McCarthy thoroughly discredited.
For an account see William Manchester, The Glory and The Dream, Bantam, New York, 1975, pp. 700-716.
Bad Day at Black Rock, John Sturges, Milliard Kaufman
 One of the sources for High Noon was a story called The Tin Star by John Cunningham which
appeared in Colliers on 6 December
1947. Behlmer, p. 270.
Senior Lecturer Strategic Communication, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia
Johnny Guitar (1954) was also directed against HUAC in a different way to High Noon. In the film, Johnny Guitar, played by Sterling Hayden, returned to this estranged lover Vienna, played by Joan Crawford, who owned a disreputable bar. A stage robbery occurred in town, and a banker was killed. The dead man’s sister Emma Small, played by Mercedes McCambridge, convinced a wealthy rancher John McIvers, played by Ward Bond, that the crime had been committed by the Dancin’ Kid, Corey ad Young Turkey, when they were innocent. Small was jealous of the Dancin’ Kid’s attraction to Vienna. The accused trio decided to rob a bank since they were being forced to flee the area anyway. Small made the bank teller swear that Vienna was involved in the robbery. In response, a posse rode to Vienna’s bar and burned it down. The posse hanged the injured Turkey who was hiding there. Eventually, the posse learned the truth about Emma and stood back while Emma and Vienna shoot it out. Vienna killed Emma and rode off with Johnny.
The plot had all the
elements of a standard western plot, even a final shootout, yet it can be read
as a political film. The outlaws can be
seen as communists who were blamed for every wrongdoing in town. Critic Michael Wilmington argued that former
gun-man Johnny, represented an ex-Communist called before the HUAC. Wilmington saw Vienna as a fellow traveller
and Emma as a vindictive witness or a politician who used the investigations to
destroy the careers of rivals. McIvers
represented big business or law enforcement authorities which, while basically
good, had succumbed to the pressure of McCarthy’s tirades. The townspeople were the American middle
can be taken further, Turkey was promised that he could be saved when he was caught
by the posse if he would point an accusatory figure at Vienna. For Ray and writer Yordan, this was the
dilemma of the witnesses before the HUAC investigators. The fact that he was hung was a reminder that
informing did not guarantee survival.
Critic Danny Peary contended that Emma’s attack on Vienna was similar to
the techniques used by McCarthyite investigators who assumed that social
deviance of any kind was an indication of communism.
The personal political viewpoints of the actors were also interesting. Ward Bond, who was one of the leaders of the lynching party, was President for the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals, which helped HUAC weed out communists in Hollywood. Sterling Hayden, who played Johnny Guitar, testified before the committee and regretted it all of his life. Hayden wrote in his autobiography about his testimony that: ‘Not often does a man find himself eulogized for having behaved in a manner that he despises. I subscribed to a press clipping service. They sent me two thousand clips from papers, east and west, large and small, and from dozens of magazines. Most had nothing but praise for my on-shot stoolie. Only a handful – led by the New York Times – denounced this abrogation of constitutional freedom.’ This casting may have been deliberate or accidental. Yet the end result was to have actual participants acting out their roles in a political allegory.
Apart from Johnny Guitar, Ray had already attacked the investigations in In A Lonely Place (1950). James W. Palmer, writes about in ‘In a Lonely Place: Paranoia in the Dream Factory’, Literature/Film Quarterly, vol. 12, 1985, No. 3, pp. 202 – 210. The film did not discuss the political situation in Hollywood, but it was a commentary on the HUAC-inspired witch hunt, the blacklisting and the paranoia that affected the film industry. The film focused on a writer Dixon Steele, played by Humphrey Bogart, who had been rejected by the Hollywood community. Since returning from the war, he had been unable to write and his drinking and aggressive behavior had led to him become an isolated figure in the Hollywood community. At the beginning of the film, he invited a hatcheck girl back to his apartment for her to tell him the story of a book which he might turn into a movie. Dixon sent the woman home and the next morning, her body was found brutally murdered. Steele was considered to be a prime suspect by the police. After being questioned and then released by the police, Steele was further isolated by the Hollywood community who saw him as guilty. Bu the end of the film, Steele, who was a violent man, became a borderline psychotic. After succumbing to the pressure, he attacked his fiancé and his life was ruined, even though he was eventually cleared of the murder charge. Steele with his persecutions and paranoia can be read as a symbol of the Hollywood Ten.
This group were a part
of the Hollywood community until accused of the ‘crime’ of communism. Eventually they were abandoned by the
community to their own fate. Film critic
James W. Palmer noted that everybody in the film was guilty of not supporting
people in need. He wrote that the real
crime was the undermining of human trust through a process of social exclusion.
Ray’s allegorical attack against HUAC in Johnny Guitar probably would have gone over the heads of its audience of the time. No evidence exists in any reviews of Johnny Guitar that anyone considered it anymore than an interesting western with strong performances from both Crawford and McCambridge. Indeed Nora Sayre in her survey of cold war films, mentions it only in passing as a light entertainment. A member of the Hollywood 10, Ring Lardner Jr. had never heard of the film, although Ray has insisted that contemporary audience got the message about the lynching party being a McCarthyite investigation.
Senior Lecturer, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia
The Westerns hold pride of place in American cinema. They retold the legends and myths of America’s frontier past and had been a feature of cinema virtually since its inception. In the 1950s, hundreds of westerns were made which dealt with many aspects of American life. It was perhaps inevitable, with the stifling of direct political criticism, and the pressing concerns of McCarthyism and communism, that westerns would take on a political dimension in the 1950s.
1947 investigation proved to be only a testing of the waters for HUAC. The Hollywood 10 went to prison in September
1950 and the committee re-gathered momentum to pounce on Hollywood again. The Hollywood 10’s imprisonment had increased
the power of HUAC to make it feared throughout the film industry. Director Joseph Losey told an interviewer
that ‘the most terrifying thing about the atmosphere was seeing people succumb,
and seeing all protest disappear.
Because if you did protest, you’d had it.’ The second HUAC investigations were to be
larger and more systematic and they destroyed the remnants of the liberal-left
in Hollywood without any effective opposition.
In the middle of these rising fears about HUAC’s return, Carl Foremen
was writing the screenplay for a western called High Noon.
film was about the desperate efforts of the Sheriff Will Kane, played by Gary
Cooper, to get help from the townspeople to fight Frank Miller and his gang,
who were being released from jail that day, and who had promised revenge on the
town and Kane. Miller, who Kane put in
prison for murder, had been pardoned, and his gang were gathering at train
station to meet when the train arrived at noon.
Kane approached all the town leaders for assistance to fight Miller but
they all abandoned him. The town and
church leaders demanded that he leave town, claiming that the gang would leave
the town alone if he was not there. Kane
failed in his attempts and faced the gunmen alone. After defeating the four outlaws, Kane threw
his badge onto the street in disgust at the town and left. The screenwriter wanted the audience to
equate the people of Cooper’s town with those who suddenly deserted their
blacklisted friends in Hollywood.
disgust equaled Foreman’s as friends humbled themselves and begged for help
from the Hollywood community without success.
Foreman had been called to testify in front of HUAC and intended to be
an un-co-operative witness. He said his friends began turning their backs on
him even though he was not a communist:
My associates were
afraid for themselves – I don’t believe them – and tried to get off the film,
unsuccessfully. They went to Gary Cooper
and he refused (to go along with them).
Fred Zimmerman, too, was very staunch and very loyal, so was out backer,
There are scenes in the
film that are taken from life. The scene
in the church is a distillation of meetings I had with partners, associates and
lawyers. And there’s the scene with the
man who offers to help and come back with his gun and asks, where are the
others? Cooper says there no others … I
became the Gary Cooper character.
depicted Hollywood society in a poor light as the threat of McCarthyism
approached. The pillars of the community
were afraid that a gunfight would jeopardise business and possible future
investment in the town and urged Kane to leave.
Their attitude was similar to the studio heads who abandoned their
employees on the slightest of pretexts to avoid bad publicity and poor box
office returns. The religious leaders
also pulled back from Kane because they cannot sanction violence. He was only offered help by only a 14 year
old boy and the town drunk and he turned down both. The retired marshal wanted to help but could
not because of his arthritis.
point of the film was that the town united could have easily defeated the
threat. Instead the Hollywood community
pursued their own individual selfish ends and were torn apart. The point was not lost after the film’s
release and Foreman was blacklisted for his efforts for many years. He was ‘morosely pleased’ when the message of
the film was understood by the conservatives.
High Noon was one of the most
important westerns of the 1950s and many films followed its pattern of a lone
law officer facing a threat to the town.
Foreman certainly had no doubts when he wrote the screenplay that the
town was Hollywood and the four men approaching represented HUAC and when the
film was released The New York Times film reviewer Bosley Crowther wrote:
It is a story that bears
a close resemblance to things that are happening today where people are
traumatised by bullies and surrendering their freedoms … (Kane) is a man with the
sense to meet a challenge, not duck and hope it will go away … The marshal can
give a few lessons to the people of Hollywood today.
it is doubtful whether the audience of the time saw it in that light. One of the Hollywood 10, Ring Lardner Jr, who
knew Carl Foreman, said he could see no anti-HUAC message in the film beyond
the general theme of standing up for oneself. If members of the Hollywood 10, who were more
sensitive on the topic did not get the message, and knew the screenwriter, what
hope was there for the general audience.
The film had an anti-HUAC message but it is uncertain whether that
message got across to the audience.
Director Zinnemann said he did not make films to prove anything.
film can also be read as a defence of McCarthy with a lone figure standing up against the communist threat. The heroic figure of Kane could be seen as
McCarthy desperately trying to awaken the community to the impending threat of
communism. Critic Phillip French has
also suggested that the film was about the United States reluctantly renewing
its role in world affairs.High
Noon started a cycle of movies with the lone or aloof law official figure,
struggling with both the town and some form of menace on the horizon. Something in that formula clicked with the
audience and the film finished eighth in the box office for 1952. The audience responded to the film but it is
unclear to exactly what they were responding.
 Tom Milne (ed.). Losey on Losey, Secker & Warburg, London,
1968, p. 90.
 Rudy Behlmer, Behind the Scenes: The Making of, Samuel French, New York, 1990, p.
 Nora Sayre, Running Time: Films of he Cold War, Dial, New York, 1982, p. 176.
In the early 1950s, conservative forces in Hollywood began to see that their anti-communist cinematic efforts had been failures. The films were not popular at the box office and the critical responses were poor or weak. During the Second World War, the reverse was true. Hollywood had made many popular anti-Nazi and anti-Japanese films during the Second World War at a furious pace. There were no anti-communist equivalents of Casablanca or Mrs Miniver. Somehow these anti-communist films did not work. My Son John had an established and acclaimed director in Leo McCarey working from his own script, its main star Robert Walker was still basking in his triumph of Strangers On A Train, the celebrated stage actress Helen Hayes had returned to the screen to play John’s mother and Dean Jagger had recently won an academy award for Twelve O’Clock High (1950), yet the film was a complete disaster. Accoldades were in short supply. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences did nominate McCarey for an Oscar for Writing (Motion Picture Story). Even with the star power of John Wayne, Big Jim McLain, was the twenty-seventh most successful film of 1952, grossing $2,600,000.
The reasons for their failure lay elsewhere. When Cecil B. DeMille was appointed to the State Department’s International Motion Picture Unit as a consultant to make cold war films in 1953, he decried the lack of support for anti-communist pictures.
Government would not arm its soldiers with guns made by amateurs. Neither should it arm … (the State)
Department with films by amateurs.
DeMille claimed that the Soviet Union had spent $14 billion on propaganda while the United States spent $75 million. The Soviet Union was producing better propaganda than the United States. He argued that more resources were needed to win the propaganda cold war. Yet the studios had poured in considerable resources for anti-communist films and none had worked. The films were not allocated second rate talent. Directors William Wellman, Gordon Douglas, Leo McCarey, William Dietrele, William Cameron Menzies, Elia Kazan, Samuel Fuller, Anthony Mann, and Josef von Sternberg and others represent a group of highly talented people. It was not the lack of talent which caused their failure or the pace at which they were cranked out by the studios.
the release of Walk East on Beacon
and other anti-communist efforts, the New
York Times film critic Bosley Crowther lashed out at Hollywood for its
failure to make effective anti-communist films.
He argued that the United States was in a state of confusion and anxiety
over the threat of communism and he wanted Hollywood to ‘clarify the realities
of the situation and the true extent of domestic peril.’ Crowther thought that the plots of the film
were reworkings of old ideas and reflected a deeper problem in the film
(In Hollywood) no one,
resenting aspersions, dares raise a clear contentious voice. Caution is king. Intellectually Hollywood is paralyzed.
In this grave state of
apprehension, it isn’t likely that the people out there are going to come
through with any … literal dramatization of the actual shape of the Communist
peril. Indeed it is not very likely that
anyone will henceforth want to touch the subject of communism with a ten foot
pole. Not only is it ticklish as a
topic, but pictures about it have proved conspicuously unbefitting as far as
the paying public is concerned.
One film which broke the anti-communist mould was Samuel Fuller’s Pick Up on South Street (1953). It was not an easy film to make. According to Lisa Dombrowsi, in her book The Films of Samuel Fuller: If You Die, I’ll Kill you, the script ran afoul of the the PCA, for “excessive brutality and sadistic beatings, of both men and women”. Although a revised script was accepted soon after, the studio was forced to shoot multiple takes of a particular scene in which the manner of Jean Peters and Richard Kiley frisk each other for loot was considered too risqué.
The film begins when a pickpocket Skip McCoy, played by Richard Widmark, stole some microfilm from the purse of Candy, the former mistress of communist Joey. The film contained a secret chemical formulae and Candy attempted to get the film back from McCoy for the psychopathic Joey. She falls in love with McCoy whole doing so, but McCoy was not interested and wanted to sell the microfilm back to the communists for $25,000. He eventually also falls in love with Candy, but only after he found out that she would not betray him to the communists. He was enraged when Candy was beaten and shot by Joey. He followed Joey and dealt out a savage beating in revenge.
was not interested in seeking revenge until he has his own personal motives to
do so. When an FBI agent asked him, ‘Do
you know what Communism is?’ Skip replies ‘Who cares?’ They press him to act out of patriotic
motives and he refused.
Detective: If you refuse to co-operate you’ll be as
guilty as those traitors who gave Stalin the A-bomb
Fuller later argued that FBI director J. Edgar Hoover had lunch with him and studio head Zanuck, and was told that he detested Fuller’s work and especially Pickup on South Street. Hoover particuarly did not like Widmark’s character saying “Are you waving the flag at me?”, He did not approve of the the scene of a Federal agent bribing an informer and other things. “Zanuck backed Fuller up, telling Hoover he knew nothing about making movies, but removed references to the FBI in the film’s advertising.” It is simple to identify Hoover’s annoyance. McCoy was only interested in money. He said to Candy: ‘So you are Red. Who cares? Your money is as good as anybody’s.’ The film was a clear break from any other anti-communist film of the time. Indeed it turned everything on its head. The criminal world looked down on communism. Moe, who informed on Skip for $50 to the police, refused to give Skip’s address to the communists because ‘even in our crumby kind of business, you’ve got to draw the line somewhere’. Moe doesn’t even know why she doesn’t like communism. She says ‘What do I know about commies? Nothing? I know I just don’t like them.’
other anti-communist films defended the role of the informer. In Pickup
On South Street, the stance on informing was reversed.
Some people peddle apples, lamb chops, lumber. I peddle information. Skip ain’t sore. He understands. We live in a different kind of world. Once in while he gets how under the collar if I sell him short.
Moe was in informer to the police and yet despised informers to communists. The hero of this film was a unrepentant and unpatriotic criminal. The law enforcement agencies appeared to be flat-footed and easily misled by the criminals. The police even needed informers like Moe to round up suspects. Fuller was laughing at the seriousness of patriotic films and in doing so produced one of the most eccentric and individual anti-communist films of the 1950s. The communism angle is so slight that when the movie was released in France, the dubbed soundtrack changed the villains from communist spys to drug dealers. The French title “Le port de la drogue” can be translated as “Pier of Drugs”. 
Fuller repeated the formula of personal, rather than political revenge, with Richard Widmark leading a submarine in Chinese controlled waters, in Hell And High Water (1954). Widmark was a mercenary who would sell his services to the highest bidder. The submarine crew uncovered a plot by the Chinese to have a disguised B29 drop atomic bombs on Manchuria to blame the United States for starting a nuclear war. Widmark couldn’t care less until his most loyal crew member was killed by a communist prisoner. Only after his friend’s, did he become committed to stopping the communist plot. Critic Nicholas Garnham argued that ‘the Fuller protagonist is always caught in a crossfire between warring totalitarian organizations.’ Pickup on South Street finished 62nd in the Variety rankings for 1953.
The links between sexuality and communism were seen in other films, but none more pointed than My Son John (1952) which linked political subversion to sexual activity. Producer, writer and director Leo McCarey was one of the leading anti-communist campaigners in Hollywood, and his film My Son John was a serious attempt to alert America to, what he considered, a dangerous and pressing threat. McCarey was a staunch anti-Communist and had joined Wood in testifying to HUAC in October 1947. He had directed Going My Way (1944) and The Bells of St. Marys (1945), which were very popular films with Bing Crosby as Father O’Malley. McCarey told HUAC his films were not successful in Russia because they contained God. He wanted Hollywood to produce anti-Communist films as it had done in the Second World War against fascism. In 1952, McCarey would do just that and direct one of the more feverish anti-Communist films in My Son John – the final political messages of which were fashioned by DeMille. The film seemed to have absorbed the political tensions of Hollywood during that strained time. From its opening scenes, it was a gloomy tense depiction of strangling the American family.
The film witnessed the return of Helen Hayes – the first lady of american Theatre – after 18 years away from the screen. The story began as Ben and Chuck Jefferson, played by James Young and Richard Jaeckel, went off to fight in the Korean War. They were blonde clean-cut American boys who played football, while their brother John, played by Robert Walker, was dark haired and read books. John worked at some mysterious job in Washington. Their mother, played by Helen Hayes, was distressed that he did not return for their farewell party. When he did return, Hayes was shocked to learn that he scoffed at his father’s membership of the American Legion. Suspicions increased when he told his parents that he believed that Bible stories should be taken on a symbolic rather than literal level.
the evidence mounting fast, his mother Lucille, played by Helen Hayes, made
John swear on the Bible that he was not a communist. He was quite happy to oblige because he was
an atheist and was not afraid of eternal damnation by making such an oath. The Bible was also used in a scene where
John’s father Dan sang John a song he composed for his American Legion Friends.
then bashed John over the head with the bible when he laughed. The scene appeared to be strongly influenced
by a similar scene from Cecil B. DeMille’s 1923 version of The Ten Commandments, where a mother read the story of Exodus from
the bible to her two sons. One son also
scoffed at the reading and was struck over the head by the other son with a
newspaper. In an earlier draft of the
screenplay of My Son John, the father
struck John when he scoffed at the commandment about honoring your
parents. The similarity was no accident
as DeMille’s political speech writer Donald Hayne wrote the original drafts for
the final speech by John Jefferson. To scoff at the ten commandments was the
equivalent of extolling communism for DeMille who saw them as the moral basis
to fight communism. Furthermore, to scoff was direct proof of
communist tendencies, hence the father’s righteous and violent reaction.
exercised absolute control over his staff and it would be impossible to believe
that Hayne wrote the speech without DeMille’s direction, approval and
consent. DeMille’s writers considered
themselves to be ‘trained seals’ who merely translated the director’s thoughts
onto paper. Even though he has not listed in the credits,
it is clear that DeMille had a great deal of power within Hollywood’s
anti-communist community and that power extended to influencing the
anti-communist content of films of other directors.
father Dan, played by Dean Jagger, swore that if he even thought his son was a
communist, he would take him into the back yard and shoot with a double-barrel
shotgun. McCarey’s depiction of the
all-American father was drunk, violent, and stupid. Throughout the film, the father was extremely
hostile to John’s intellectual achievements, and yet the mother’s character was
even worse. She hovered on the edge of a
nervous breakdown and there were several hints to her being menopausal. In an earlier draft of the film, the message
was clear that she was going through a ‘stage of life’ and needed to constantly
take pills. When the mother heard that John was being
investigated by the FBI for being communist, she regarded it as solid evidence
that he was guilty. In the draft script, she actually collapsed before
testifying that her son was a communist.
The audience was meant to conclude that her communist son was undermining
her mental and physical health. It would
be easier to believe that these demented parents led their children into
Like I Married a Communist, My Son John linked intellectual activity to communism. John was constantly compared with his blonde brothers. They played football and were doing their patriotic duty in Korea while John was an intellectual and a traitor. T seemed failure to play football was one of the key elements of becoming a political subversive. The mother recalled going to a football game to see Ben and Chuck play. As she supported their football team, she would turn to John and barrack for him in his own personal football game. The audience was told that John’s brothers were pulled out of school to pay for John’s education. These ideas neatly fitted with the anti-intellectual atmosphere of the McCarthyite investigators. It was a time when the word ‘egghead’ became a pejorative term for intellectuals. While making the film, McCarey told The New York Times:
(My Son John) is about
a mother and father who struggle and slaved.
They had no education. They put
all their money into higher education for their sons. But on of the kids gets too bright. It poses the problem – how bright can you
He takes up a lot of
things including atheism… The mother only knew two books – her Bible and her
cookbook. But who’s the brighter in the
end – the mother or the son.
there was something more sinister than intellectual curiosity which led to
communism. In his review of the film
Bosley Crowthey in the New York Times wrote that intellectuals were seen as
‘dangerous perverters of youth.’ It was not only in the field of ideas that he
was corrupt. John’s twisted relationship
with his mother indicated murkier reasons for the descent into the abyss. Nora Sayre noted that John was deceitful and
charming toward her and there was an undisguised hostility towards his
father. His performance was as close as
Hollywood would dare come to that of a homosexual. The father looked on in disgust when he met
his professor from his old University.
In the early draft of the screenplay, Dan says to his wife: ‘Did you see that greeting? I thought they were going to kiss each
other.’ John’s communism was the result of a
combination of anti-athletic, intellectual and homosexual tendencies.
the original screenplay, John’s mother was in a position to put John in prison
for his communist activities. She could
not bring herself to testify against John to the FBI and collapsed and was then
put into a hospital. The draft
screenplay was incomplete, but it did include notes of a speech where John
renounced his communist past while making a speech to a high school. The speech, which incriminated him, was made
even though the FBI was unable to convict him.
John was arrested and taken to prison.
In the final scene, he visited his mother in hospital and told her of
his return to the ‘side of the angels’.
film required a different ending as Walker died before the end of My Son John. Some hasty rewriting was needed, and McCarey
used some outtakes from Strangers On A
Train given to him by director Alfred Hitchcock to spin out an ending. To complete the film. John went through a remarkable conversion to
capitalism at the end of the film and was immediately gunned down by his fellow
communists beneath the Lincoln Memorial.
the film from the 1930s through to the 1950s, the figure of Lincoln was used to
bolster the political viewpoints of the filmmakers. Abraham Lincoln was the most deified on the
Presidents in the American popular imagination.
In Mr Smith Goes to Washington (1939),
the dejected Smith returned to fight the corrupt politicians in the Senate after
seeing a small child in front of the Lincoln Memorial. Director John Ford repeatedly used Lincoln as
an icon of fundamental American wisdom in films such as The Iron Horse (1924) and Young
Mr Linclon (1939). In Cheyenne Autumn (1964), the Secretary of
State, played by Edward G. Robinson, looked at a picture of Lincoln, while
pondering the fate of the Cheyenne
Indians, and said ‘What would he do?’ and the problems of Cheyenne Indians
were soon resolved. Lincoln was also
used to support the closing anti-communist message in I Was a Communist for the FBI and The FBI Story (1958).
was once again the icon of traditional American values. John’s death at the feet of the memorial
showed that his political conversion and redemption was complete. He had paid his price for becoming a
communist. In the original script he
cried out: ‘I am a native American
communist spy – and may God have mercy on my soul!’ The final film made John pay for his
communism with his death. At the
conclusion, a tape recording of his planned speech was played to a graduating
I was going to help to
make a better world. I was flattered
when I was immediately recognized as an intellect. I was invited to homes where only superior
minds commuted. It excited my freshman
fancy to hear daring thoughts … A bold defiance of the only authorities I’d
ever known: my church and my father and my mother. I know that many of you have experienced that
stimulation. But stimulants lead to
narcotics. As the seller of habit-forming
dope gives the innocent their first inoculation, with a cunning worthy of a
serpent, there are other snakes waiting lying to satisfy the desire of the
young to give themselves something positive…
concluding speech described communism as an addictive drug. This did not explain why John was able to
break his addiction so easily. During
his final speech a ray of light shines down on the stage indicating God’s
approval, when John asked for God’s mercy, it was surely given.
final speech was quite different form Hayne’s original script. Hayne wanted to emphasise that the laws
against communist agents were weak and the FBI could not have convicted
John. He gave up any chance of escape
and confessed that he had been passing secrets to the Russians. McCarey, however wanted to drive home the
inherent evil of communism. McCarey’s
draft for John’s final speech was extremely close to the final film and it
seemed that Walker’s death did little to change its direction.
Once again, communism was expunged by a severe act of contrition. Both Robert Ryan in I Married A Communist and Robert Walker in My Son John had to perform this painful act to clear themselves of communism, just as those in Hollywood had to name names before the HUAC investigations in order to clear themselves. McCarey’s depiction of communism was the blackest of the 1950s. It was as an addictive drug peddled by intellectuals with homosexual tendencies to young impressionable minds. The thin academic air of college was a breeding ground for these delusions. Young people who wanted to do something positive may fall victim to its clutches. Yet the alternative in McCarey’s world was not much better. Violent and threatening, verging on psychotic, fathers and neurotic mothers were the all-American couple. These parents would sacrifice their children to the authorities through guilt by association. He film rationalized that the techniques used throughout America and Hollywood were necessary and desirable. It argued that being investigated was the same as being guilty; that authorities were impeccable in their research and pursuit of enemies and never made mistakes. John’s confession at the end of the film justified the physical and mental battering he had received from his mother, his father and the authorities. The confession was a justification of HUAC’s investigations and the stance taken by the studio heads. When the film was released, it was not surprising that DeMille said it was a great film and showed that McCarey was a great American. The film was, however, universally condemned by film reviewers. My Son John represented the low water mark of Hollywood’s dealing with communism and the film did not make Variety’s list for the year despite some heavy advertising. Most reviewers slammed the film, aside from Bosley Crowther in The New York Times who praised some aspects of it; but even he had grave concerns about its political dogmatism.
Bernard Dick focuses on Leo McCarey’s anti-communist film My Son John (1952) in some detail in his book The Screen is Red. The film’s production fell into a shambles with the death of lead actor Robert Walker, and an ending of sorts was created – with some unheralded assistance by Cecil B. DeMille and Alfred Hitchcock. The remaining film is uncomfortable to watch; it contains one disturbing scene in which an angry father attacks his communist son for laughing at his conservative jingoism. Despite the contrived conclusion, Dick describes McCarey as a master of plot resolution. He argues that McCarey gave viewers an ending that was “dramatic and reflective,”  providing an accurate description of America in the early years of the Cold War. His respectful analysis is at odds with both contemporary reviewers and later critics, who see it as a mixture of hysterical anti-communism tinctured with a vague homophobia – along with some disturbing ideas about motherhood.
 Draft of final speech of My Son
John, Cecil B. DeMille Archives, Box 439, Folder 10, Brigham Young University,
 A full discussion will be in the
chapter on biblical epics.
 Quote from unnamed writer in
Motion Picture Daily, 16 December 1949.
Accounts of DeMille’s legendary treatment of writers can be found in Ring Lardner Jr., ‘The Sign of the
Boss’, Screenwriter, November 1945,
and Phil Koury, Yes, Mr DeMille, G.P.Putnam’s Sons, New York, 1976.
 Undated draft script of My Son
John, Box 439, Folder 10, Cecil B. DeMille Archives, Box 439, Folder 10,
Brighan Young University, Provo, Utah.
 William Manchester, The Glory and the Dream A Narrative History
of America 1932 – 1972, Bantam, New York, 1975, pp. 625 – 626.
New York Times, 18 March 1952.
At the end of the original script, John asks his mother to bake cookies
for him in prison.
 Sayre, Running Time, p.96. Walker’s
performance is close to his acclaimed role of Bruno in Strangers On A Train where again his performance had strong
homosexual overtones. See Donald Spoto, Art Of Alfred Hitchcock, Dolphin, New
York, 1976, p. 212 and for a differing view see Robin Wood, Hitchcock Film’s Revisited, Columbia
University Press, New York, 1960, pp. 347 – 348. McCarey did claim that Hitchcock was a strong
influence for the film, New York Times,
9 April 1952.
 Draft script of My Son John, p.
11 Box 439, Folder 10, Cecil B. DeMille Archives, Box 439, Folder 10, Brigham
Young University, Provo, Utah.
 Walker died after being
prescribed some sedatives by doctors after emotional outbursts on the set of My Son John. He had a history of problems with alcohol and
had suffered a nervous breakdown in the late 1940s. David Thomson, A Biographical Dictionary of the Cinema, Secker and Warburg,
London, 1975, p. 595.
 Hayne, Donald John’s Speech, 2
June 1951, Cecil B. DeMille Archives, Box 439, Folder 10, Cecil B. DeMille
Archives, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.
 Hayne, Donald John’s Speech, 2
June 1951, and Leo McCarey, Leo John’s
Speech, 10 August 1951. Cecil B.
DeMille Archives, Box 439, Folder 10, Cecil B. DeMille Archives, Brigham Young
University, Provo, Utah.
 Cecil B. DeMille to Leo McCarey,
3 April 1952. Cecil B. DeMille Archives,
Box 439, Folder 10, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.
 The film’s advertising focused
on a non-existent sex scene. The film
was condemned by most film reviewers at the time. One belated defence of the film is in Leland
A. Poague, The Hollywood Professionals:
Wilder and McCarey, London, Tantry Press, 1980.
Conservative ideologue Ayn Rand was angry about the focus of the 1947 HUAC hearings, as she had wanted to examine The Best Years of Our Lives. Committee head J. Parnell Thomas argued with her saying that if the film was attacked, there would be a furor. The fact that Rand may have been able to approach the head of the committee to complain about the way she had been interviewed strongly indicated that the friendly witnesses were stage managed. No unfriendly witness had such an opportunity.  It also demonstrated the obsession of the committee with publicity. He would later link the investigation of communism in the film industry to the leaking of atomic secrets to the Russians. Journalists were intrigued and showed up in droves to find it was a media stunt and Thomas had nothing.
TheBest Years of Our Lives dominated the box office and scooped the Oscars, becoming the most successful film of the year. After the HUAC investigations of 1947, director William Wyler claimed that he wouldn’t be allowed to make films such as The Best Years of Our Lives anymore because of HUAC. He warned that the committee was making decent people afraid to express their political opinions by creating fear in Hollywood. Wyler said fear would lead to self-censorship and eventually the screen would be paralysed.
Wyler’s warnings about censorship seem unjustified. Several films were made on sensitive topics such as racial prejudice from 1947 through to 1951. These films included Crossfire (1947), Gentleman’s Agreement (1947), Pinky (1949), Home of the Brave (1949), Intruder in the Dust (1949), No Way Out (1950), and Storm Warning (1950). Even westerns began taking a liberal turn with films such as Broken Arrow (1950) and Devil’s Doorway (1949) depicting Indians in a positive light. To varying degrees these films showed that Hollywood could tackle social subjects well. Capitalism was also the subject of allegorical attack. Abraham Polonsky made two successful radical films in his short-lived film career as screenwriter and director in the 1940s. Both Body and Soul (1947) and Force of Evil (1948) have been read as Marxist critiques of capitalism.All My Sons (1948), based on Arthur Miller’s play, depicted an industrialist was willing to sell defective planes to the Airforce to stay in business. But this brief flowering of liberal and radical films was cut short in 1951 at the time of the second HUAC investigation of Hollywood and the lead up to the 1952 Presidential election.
Hollywood’s political vision in the immediate post-war period was in turmoil. The caustic anti-communism was competing with a vision of liberal tolerance. Overall it was the liberal films which won the popularity stakes, with Pinky being the second most popular film of 1949. But their popularity did not guarantee their production. With the second and more extensive HUAC investigation in 1951, the political pendulum had swung so far to the right that liberalism was tainted with being soft on communism. Some people argued that the State Department and the Truman administration had lost China to the communists. This was idea so pervasive that it even strongly affected the Kennedy administration. He was determined to be seen to be strong on communism as a Democrat President. His determination led to events like the Bay of Pigs invasion and intervention in Vietnam.  After 1951, there was no such confusion in the political message from Hollywood. The diet of films was straight anti-communism with no liberal trimmings.
Big Jim McLain (1951), was more of a public relations exercise for the HUAC investigators, than a film. It was produced by the ultra-conservative actor John Wayne and was based on the experiences of HUAC investigator William Wheeler and it claimed to be made with the full co-operation of the committee with access to cases from HUAC files. The film linked HUAC to American icons. After the opening credits, the narrator quotes from the short story “The Devil and Daniel Webster” by Stephen Vincent Benet. It then immediately praises the House Committee on Un-American Activities for its attack on communism despite “undaunted by the vicious campaign of slander launched against them.” Wayne was targeting HUAC’s opponents in Hollywood.The film began with the assumption that anybody who was a communist after 1945 was a traitor or spy or both – a few clearly stated by J. Edgar Hoover. HUAC investigators were able to track down communist subversives but the committee could do little with them once they had took the fifth amendment. The investigators taped several conversations about a far-fetched plot to tie up the wharfs by infecting them with some kind of bacteria. The infestation would be the basis for long industrial dispute which would be prolonged by communist agents in management and unions. Once again it was a waterfront union as in I Married A Communist. This effort would be the same as putting ‘another division in the field’ in Asia. European distributors were not so impressed with the plot. According to Wikipedia, “In some European markets the film was retitled as Marijuana and dispensed with the communist angle, making the villains drug dealers instead. This was achieved entirely through script changes and dubbing. ” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Jim_McLain
McLain, played by John Wayne, and the Hawaiian police force uncovered the plot,
but only arrested those responsible for the accidental death of a communist
stooge. The audience were left wondering
why the communists were not behind bars for murder of McLain’s partner. The film’s aim, however, was to reinforce
Wayne’s view that the constitution was designed to protect good citizens, not
those who would tear it apart. The
communists were straight out criminals and thugs, who betrayed each other and
murdered Wayne’s partner. At one stage,
McLain fought the entire gang single handedly and was so honorable that he
would not punch out one communist because he was too short. McLain said: ‘We don’t hit the little
guy. That’s the difference between us
and you.’ The communists take a fifth amendment and go
free at the end of the film.
The real objects of Wayne’s attack, however, were those who refused to testify before HUAC, while informers on communists were greatly praised. At one point, McLain and his partner visited an old couple who told them that their estranged son was a communist. This evidence provided the vital clue which broke a communist cell in Hawaii. Informing was a selfless act of patriotism, even if it meant naming your own son. Big Jim McLain was ranked 27th by Variety making $2.6 million in rentals. It was the most successful of the anti-communist films of the early 1950s possibly because of the immense popularity of John Wayne.
One of the oddest anti-communist films to come out of Hollywood in the period between the first and second HUAC investigations was the The Fountainhead (1949). Based on Ayn Rand’s bestselling book, and directed by MPAPAI founding executive committee member King Vidor, the film was a defence of the creative individual against the deadening collective. The film should be seen as Rand’s own personal vision rather than Vidor’s. Rand had such power in Hollywood at the time that when Vidor wanted some scenes cut from the film, Rand made Warner restore them.
Cooper played visionary architect Howard Roark who the public hated because of
his individualism. He was expelled from
school because his ideas were too original.
His architecture was criticised by Ellsworth Touhy through his column in
the populist The New York Banner,
arguing that ‘artistic value is achieved collectively, by each man
subordinating himself to the standards of the majority. Touhy doesn’t like genius as he believed it
to be ‘dangerous’. He explained his
reasons to be compromised architect John Keating.
What are you after?
TOUHY: Power! What do think is power? Whips, guns, money. You can’t turn men into slaves unless you
break their spirit. Kill their capacity
to think and act on their own. Tie them
together. Teach them to conform. Untie to agree to oblige. That makes one neck for the leash.
agreed to design a housing development for the poor using Keating as a front,
provided his designs were exactly followed.
When they were not, Roark destroyed the building with dynamite. Before the trial, Touhy began a storm of
protest against Roark. The owner of the
New York Banner, Gail Wynand, played by Raymond Massey, wanted to support Roark
and sacked Touhy. Touhy virtually closed
down the paper as the entire office walked off in support. Touhy explained his strategy to Wynand and
ASSISTANT: I can’t
understand how Ellsworth got so much power.
I never noticed it. But he got
his gang in little by little. And now he
WYNAND: And I own the Banner.
TOUHY: (entering the room) Do you Mr Wynand? So you were after power, Mr Wynand and you
thought you were a practical man, you left to impractical intellectuals the
whole field of ideas to corrupt as we please as you were making money. You thought money was power. Is it Mr Wynand? You poor amateur.
represented the communist – with a liberal façade – who was destroying the
system from within. Just as Rand
believed that the communists were inserting corrupt ideas into films to undermine
capitalism, the character of Touhy reflected her concern. It was he, not the capitalists, who had the
real power. Eventually Touhy reasserted
his control over the paper after a popular boycott. He was quite open about his aims in a public
attack on Roark.
We don’t have to wait
for the trial to convict him. Howard
Roark is guilty by his very nature. It
is his work that designed Courtland. What
if he did? Society needed a housing
project. It was his duty to sacrifice
his own desires and contribute any ideas we demanded of him on any terms we
chose. Who is society? We are. Man can only be permitted to exist in order
to serve others. He must be a tool for
the satisfaction of others. Self
sacrifice is the law of our age. The man
who refuses to submit and to serve is a man who must be destroyed.
his trial, Roark argued for the role of the individual against the
collective. He made no pretense at
innocence and defended his actions by conjuring up a vision of an ancient
struggle between the evil collective and the vision of the individual.
Man cannot survive
except through his mind. He comes on
earth unarmed. His brain is his only
weapon. But the mind is an attribute of
the individual. There is no such thing
as a collective brain. The man who
thinks must think and act on his own.
The reasoning mind cannot be subordinated to the needs, wishes or
opinions of others … Look at history.
Everything we have. Every great
achievement has come from the independent work from some independent mind. Every horror and destruction from attempts to
force men into a level of brainless, soulless, robots without personality,
without rights without will or hope or dignity.
It is an ancient conflict. The
individual against the collective.
his obvious guilt, Roark was acquitted by the jury to pursue his own
career. The decision was nonsense. In dynamiting the building, he was guilty of
a range of crimes and should have been sent to prison. But it was a political trial and Roark was
set free. The individual had triumphed
over the collective.
The Fountainhead hinted at the existence of an blacklist of anti-communists in Hollywood. Roark could not find work while he fought with Touhy and his associates. This suggestion was a calculated insult to those who had been blacklisted by the studios. Rand argued that talented individuals like Roark could lose their jobs because of their beliefs. She later told her biographer that there was a blacklist of anti-communists in force in the HUAC years. She said almost everybody who testified for the committee who were considered dispensable, such as freelancers or writers or actors without a contract to a major studio lost their jobs. ‘Morrie Ryskind had more work than he could handle; he never worked again in Hollywood’ while ‘Adolphe Menjou got fewer and fewer jobs’ and soon could ‘find no work at all’.
No evidence exists of a blacklist of anti-communists and Rand’s statements are not supported by an available evidence. Screenwriter Morrie Ryskind had many screen credits in the 1930s. In the 1940s he received one for Penny Serenade in 1941, Where Do We Go From Here? In 1945 and Heartbeat in 1946. After this his film career began to slow down. But three credits in six years is not more work than you can handle. It seems clear that his career was already in decline when he testified to HUAC. When conservative critic William F. Buckley Jr. made similar claims in 1963 about Morrie Ryskind, screenwriter Phillip Dunne, one of the co-founders of the Committee for the First Amendment, told Buckley that Ryskind could have a job by turning up at 20th Century Fox Studios. According to Dunne, Ryskind failed to show. After Hollywood, Ryskind worked as a columnist for the Hearst Press. He also secured a position from the government in writing anti-communist films for the United States Information Agency. Menjou made three films in 1947, one in 1948, two in 1949, one in 1950, two in 1951, one in 1952 and continued to make films up to 1960. This was about the rate before the HUAC hearings. He also had two television series in 1951 and 1953. See Halliwell, Leslie. Filmgoer’s Companion seventh edition, Paladin, London, 1980, p. 546. Kazan also claimed that Menjou was on a left wing blacklist in his autobiography and he broke the blacklist by employing Menjou for Man on a Tightrope (1952). The facts are that Menjou enjoyed regular employment in Hollywood. 
was clearly an influence on the production of The Fountainhead. The
closing scene of the film showed a woman rising in an open elevator and looking
up at the make figure of Roark on top of the building and which then cut to
look across at the city skyline. The
scene was almost identical to one in DeMille’s 1932 version of The Ten Commandments. Vidor was either strongly influenced by the
scene and incorporated it into the film or DeMille was playing a advisory
role. In either event, DeMille certainly
agreed with the politics of the film.
After the launch of the film, Rand wrote to DeMille saying The Fountainhead was doing extremely
well at the box office, particularly at the neighborhood houses, where
‘audiences everywhere break into applause at the end of Roark’s speech’. Rand wrote that this made her happy, because
it showed that ‘the political sympathy of the country is with us’.
reality was quite different and the film was not well received. Bosley Crowther in the New York Times wrote:
If Miss Rand intended
this drama to be a warning against the present threat of Communism muscling in
on our fair democracy, then she might have shown more confidence in the good
old body politic and less growing admiration for the genius who is a law unto
himself… For it is out of such deadly cynicism and reckless reverence as are
shown in this film that emerges a form of fanaticism which is a peril to
Rand wrote back on July 24 and accused Crowther of being an Ellsworth Toohey and ignoring the real issues of the film. She also claimed that because of her stance, approved screenplays would reach the screen unaltered at Warner Brothers. The studio later claimed on July 31 that she had been mistaken and that actors were no longer permitted to improvise with scripts. As a novel, The Fountainhead was a bestseller, but this did not translate to the box office: The film was ranked 38th by Variety, making $2.1 million.
initial stage of the anti-communist crusade was an attempt to exonerate the
moguls for their actions in dealing with HUAC.
The political never-never land of I
Married A Communist and The
Fountainhead contained calculate insults aimed at Hollywood’s liberal and
radical community. The Fountainhead was perhaps the more insulting as it inverted the
political order to make it appear that the communists were in control and were
attempting to crush the work of talented individuals.
 Raymond Durgnat and Scott
Simmon, King Vidor, American,
Universtiy of California Press, Berkeley, 1988, p. 263.
 See Phillip Dunne, Take Two: A Life in Movies and Politics, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980, p. 217. as reported in Hollywood Reporter, 18 March 1954.
See Elia Kazan, A Life, Doubleday, New York, 1988, p. 478 – 480.
No doubts exist about
the effectiveness of the blacklist which ended many careers. See John Cogley Report on Blacklisting, 2 vols, The Fund for the Republic, New
York, 1956. Rand’s claim of a blacklist
for friendly witnesses are also dubious because of her own career in Hollywood
began after testifying.
 Ayn Rand to Cecil B. DeMille, 29
April 1949, Cecil B. DeMille Archives, Box 418, Folder 3, Brigham Young
University, Provo, Utah.