On the Waterfront (1954) was a subtle defense of informing. It was a film of undeniable power with a strong central performance from Marlon Brando. Image courtesy of eMoviePoster.
Kevin Brianton
Senior Lecturer, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia
While informers were slated in Stalag 17, there was a small group of films which defended their role. These films were for more successful than the studio’s anti-communist efforts. On the Waterfront (1954) was a subtle defense of informing. It was a film of undeniable power with a strong central performance from Marlon Brando. The film began as a screenplay by Arthur Miller called The Hook about a doomed attempt to overthrow gangsters on the waterfront. Arthur Miller was a close friend of director Elia Kazan and they planned to write and direct the film between them.[1] Studio head Harry Cohn had the story checked by the FBI and Roy Brewer, the powerful and corrupt head of the International Alliance of Theatrical and Stage Employees, for any possible communist taint. Brewer told Cohn that if the movie was produced in its present form he would pull out projectionists in any cinema that showed it. The FBI regarded it as dangerous because it could cause trouble on the nation’s waterfront at the time of war in Korea. Cohn demanded that the central gangster figure be turned into a communist to refute these criticisms. Miller withdrew the script and received a caustic telegram from Cohn saying:
‘IT
IS INTERESTING THAT THE MINUTE WE TRY TO MAKE THE SCRIPT PRO-AMERICAN YOU PULL
OUT. HARRY COHN’.[2]
Kazan
was annoyed by Miller’s backing away from the project. The pair had a further falling out over their
individuals public and artistic responses to the HUAC investigations. Kazan had quit the party in 1935, but the
committee still wanted his testimony before he could continue his career in
Hollywood. Kazan decided to testify
before he committee and to name names.
He felt ostracized for his decision to testify and inform. Kazan gave vent to these feelings in On the Waterfront. The film was about the plight of Terry
Malloy, played by Brando, who was unwittingly involved in a dockside murder by
a gangster union. After they murder his
brother, – shades of I Married A
Communist – he declared to stand up to the gangsters and testify before a
Kefauver-like commission.[3] It was scripted by Budd Schulberg, who like
Kazan, had testified before the HUAC investigators and named names of former
communist party members. Schulberg had a
long association with the communist party and had introduced one of the Hollywood
10, Ring Lardner Jr., to the party and then later named him in testimony.[4]
Terry
Malloy’s testimony to the inquiry and his subsequent rejection by the dockers
can be seen to mirror Kazan’s history when he broke from the Communist party in
the 1930s and later testified in the HUAC hearings as a friendly witness. Kazan claimed that he testified against the
communists because he saw them as a threat to America, and was then forced to
suffer the ostracism of his former colleagues.
After many years of half-hearted denials, Kazan admitted in his
autobiography that he used the film to hit back at those in the Hollywood
community who shunned him.
He
wrote:
I doubt that Budd
(Schulberg) was affected as personally as I was by the parallel of Tony Mike’s
story. (Tony Mike was the basis for
Terry Malloy) his reaction to the loss
of certain friends was not a biter as my own; he had not experienced their
blackballing as frequently and intensely as I had in the neighborhood known as
Broadway. I believe Budd regarded out
waterfront story with greater objectivity, an objectivity I appreciated. But I did see Tony Mike’s story as my own,
and that connection did lend the tome of irrefutable anger to the scenes I
photographed and to any work with actors.
When Brando, at the end, yells at Lee J. Cobb, the mob boss, “I’m glad
what I done – you hear me? – glad what I done!” that was me saying with
identical heat, that I was glad that I testified as I had. I’d been snubbed by friends each and every
day for many months in my old show business haunts, and I’d not forgotten nor
would I forgive the men, old friends some of them, who’d snubbed me, so the
scene in the film where Brando goes back to the waterfront to “shape up” again
for employment and is rejected by the men with whom he’d worked day after day –
that, too, was my story, now told to the world.
So when the critics say that I put my story and my feeling on the
screen, to justify my informing, they are right.[5]
Panic in the Streets (1950) also supported informing. Image courtesy of eMoviePoster.
Similar
themes about informing had appeared before in Kazan’s films. Panic
in the Streets (1950) also supported informing. Two criminals killed an illegal alien after a
card game and become unknowingly infected with plague. After examining the body, a doctor realised
he had 48 hours to track down the infected killers or the disease would cause a
large scale epidemic. The film was about
a desperate search for the villains by the health authorities and the police
before the plague took hold. The
criminals continued to spread the disease throughout their haunts as the search
continued. Those who did not inform were
vulnerable to the disease. One café
owner with a key lead did not tell the authorities what he knew even though his
wife was already dying from the disease.
Informing to the authorities was not only good civic duty but essential
for the survival of the community. The
authorities could heal only those who confess, those who did not could infect
with a deadly plague.
Kazan
always appeared troubled by his decision to name names before HUAC. In 1952, he directed a film called Viva Zapata which was about the Mexican
revolutionary leader Emiliano Zapata and his struggles. Kazan had to juggle the complex and
contradictory demands of extolling a revolutionary leader and maintaining an
anti-communist line.[6] In 1953, he directed an anti-communist film
called Man on A Tightrope, in which
he took great pride in using Fredric March who he claimed to have rescued off
the blacklist.[7] Critic Nora Sayre has pointed out that the
themes of informing and betrayal reappeared in many of Kazan’s later
works. In his film The Visitors (1972) which was based on his son’s script, two
Vietnam veterans took vengeance on a former friend who had given evidence
against them after they had raped and murdered an young Vietnamese woman. In the film, the informer felt that he should
have prevented their actions rather than turning them in, which was
useless. Following The Visitors, Kazan wrote a novel called The Understudy where a reluctant informer’s testimony brought an
old friend before the grand jury. The
informer was extolled by the police for informing against a criminal and he did
everything to help his friend while dying.[8]
[1] Arthur Miller, Timebends: A Life, Methuen, London,
1987, p. 195.
[6] For an excellent account of
Kazan’s problems with the film see Paul J. Vanderwood, ‘Viva Zapata: An American Cold Warrior’, in John E. O’Connor and
Martin A. Jackson, (ed.), American
History/American Film: Interpreting the Hollywood Image, new exp. Edn.
Continuum, New York, 1988, pp. 183 – 203.
[7] Kazan, A Life, p. 479. Kazan’s
claim is doubtful. March appeared in no
films between 1947 and 1950 and in a British film in 1948 which suggests that
he was blacklisted for a time, He was credited with a film in 1951 which
indicates that he was off the blacklist when he came to make Man on A Tightrope in 1952. Based on listings from Ephriam Katz, The Film Encyclopedia, Harper & Row,
p. 774.
[8] Nora Sayre, Running Time, Dial, New York, p. 172.
Stalag 17 (1954) was an interesting film from a political perspective. The film was about an informer within a prisoner of war camp. Image courtesy of eMoviePoster.
Kevin Brianton
Senior Lecturer, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia
One of the most controversial aspects of the HUAC investigations was the insistence of the investigators for names. Those named by people testifying were usually already known to the committee and it served no purpose other than to show that the witness was fully co-operative. Those who informed were also the subject of many films during the 1950s. Stalag 17 (1954) was an interesting film from a political perspective. The film was about an informer within a prisoner of war camp. Director Billy Wilder had signaled his disgust with the HUAC style investigations through his support of Mankiewicz, along with his involvement in the Committee For The First Amendment and it comes through in this film.
The desperate Willliam Holden tries to bribe a German Sergeant to get the name of the Informer. Image courtesy of eMoviePoster.
The authorities were the detested Nazis, and in consequence the film could not be objected to on political grounds. An informer within the camp was foiling escape attempts and passing on secrets. It was in one fragment of dialogue that Wilder and co-writer Blum got their message across. It happened when the suspected traitor William Holden tells his assistant – who no longer trusts him – that there was a German spy in the barracks: ‘It’s hard to imagine an American informing on another American. But maybe they’re not an American, maybe …’[1] He is interrupted before he can complete the sentence but the implication was that to inform on another American was an unpatriotic act – perhaps an un-American act – and worthy only of people with the lowest form of morality such as the Nazis. When the German informer was finally uncovered, he was brutally thrown from the barracks with clattering tin cans tied round his legs to be mown down by machine guns. It was a violent ending to a film which gave no sympathy at all to the plight of the informer. Indeed, informers had never been popular in American cinema. From The Informer (1935) through to Stalag 17 (1954), it was difficult to identify any films where the informer was a hero. Informing was usually an act of cowardice. Kiss of Death (1947) was one example where an informer was the central hero for testifying against a gangster. The line is very close to the sentiments of Moe in Pick Up On South Street. In Brute Strength (1947) directed by Jules Dassin, a prisoner says to a sadistic warder played by Hume Cronyn who wants him to inform: ‘I’m a cheap thief, but I’m not an informer.’[2] Dassin was one of the Hollywood community who was driven out by the HUAC hearings and blacklisting’s. He was not able to work in America for many years because of his stand.[3]
[1]Stalag 17, (d) Billy Wilder, Billy Wilder, Edwin Blum.
[2] Quoted in Victor Navasky, Naming Names, Viking New York, 1980, page x.
[3] Larry Ceplair and Steven Englund, The Inquisition in Hollywood: Politics in
the Film Community 1930 – 1960, Doubleday, New York, 1980, p. 399.
Strategic Air Command (1955) also showed the swing away from red-baiting to a more moderate approach to superpower conflict. Image courtesy of eMoviePoster.
Kevin Brianton
Senior Lecturer, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia
The failure of the anti-communist films from 1949 to 1952 to leave their mark was attributable to three main factors: the haste and clumsy way they were produced; the obvious studio pressure to put as much vitriol as possible in the films; and finally the endless digs within the films at former members of the Hollywood community. In the first phase, the films can be read as concerted attacks on the unfriendly witnesses and those who supported them. It is not surprising that the anti-communist films had no resonance with the wider American community because they were aimed at blacklisted communist or left-wing writers, actors or directors. The films failed to separate liberal and communist critics of society, they justified civil rights abuses, depicted communists as sexually perverted, drug dealing hypocrites and they slandered intellectuals. These films would have alienated those members of the audience with any liberal sympathies whatsoever. The films also attempted to blame all America’s problems on the communists. Union troubles, race riots and demonstrations were all linked back to communist agitators and an elaborate masterplot from Moscow. The films argued that the United States would be perfect apart from these communist agents. They were political nonsense with their delusions of world wide conspiracy and the films and their ideas were rejected by the American public.
By the mid-1950s, it was
clear that the real sting had gone from anti-communist films. Strategic Air Command (1955) also showed
the swing away from red-baiting to a more moderate approach to superpower
conflict. The communists were barely
even hinted at in the script, even though the entire film is about the work of
the Strategic Air Command. This group
was constantly in flight and prepared to attack Russia with its nuclear
weapons. It would have been a difficult
task for a writer to draw out any tension from a plane flying for hours on end
and instead the film focused on Rusty Castle played by Jimmy Stewart. Castle was a major league baseball player who
was recalled into the SAC because they needed good, steady leadership in the
Airforce to maintain their nuclear threat.
He was reluctant to join, after serving during the war, but on seeing
the benefits for America, he did so. It
was a simple film which reveled in the advanced technology available to the
United States Airforce. The film lacked
a climax which reflected its underlying philosophy which was put forward by
Castle: ‘There is a kind of war on –
we’ve got to stay ready to fight without fighting- that’s harder.’[1]
This message of a fight
without fighting resonated with Americans.
Their belief in the effectiveness of the Strategic Air Command was to be
shattered when the Russians launched the Sputnik in 1957. However in 1955, the film reassured the
nuclear jitters of the American people.
Senator Thomas H. Kuchel of California said the cause of peace was well
served by the film.
It serves free people everywhere. To the extent that all people are made aware
of our great military strength, the likelihood of aggression by those who
oppose freedom diminishes. It brings
those who view it, a graphic and moving story of the power and might of our
Strategic Air Command.[2]
The United States needed
its nuclear weapons to keep the communists at bay. The Strategic Air Command was expensive but
it did the job and the security of the American system was maintained. Subversion was hinted at with the film’s
insistence of security. This film was
definitely aimed at reassuring the American people that America’s nuclear
weapons were in safe hands and were more than a match for the Russians.
Strategic
Air Command
achieved great financial success with its message of quiet confidence in the
nuclear deterrence and the effectiveness of the American forces. The cold war message had moved right away
from subversion to deal with the actual reality of Russia’s nuclear and military
capacity. When films concentrated on the
inherent strength of the United States, they were far more successful. Strategic
Air Command added a note of reassurance which had been missing from the
anti-communist propaganda of the 1950s.
It earned $6.5 million and was the fourth highest earning film of 1955.[3] Such a huge popular reaction to an
anti-communist film had simply not occurred before.
Not even the Korean War
could provide Hollywood with the impetus to make any popular propaganda
films. The Bridges at Toko Ri (1955), which was the most popular film on
the Korean war, avoided discussing any of the major issues involved in the conflict. There were odd references to the Russians,
but the film focused on the life of sailors and pilots in the navy. The war was a forgotten task undertaken by
soldiers who would rather be at home with their wives and girlfriends. This film was the exception as most Korean
War films were box office poison.
Yet the American public
remained implacably anti-communist throughout the late 40s and early 1950s and
it would be logical to assume that these films would have reflected their
concerns and fears about communism. The
films failed because they did not deal with the audience’s real fears about
communism. Other types of films did.
[1]Strategic Air Command, (d) Anthony Mann, Valentine Davies,
Beirnie Lay Jnr.
[2] Paramount Studios press
release, 31 January 1955, Box 629, Folder 4, Cecil B. DeMille Archives, Brigham
Young University, Provo, Utah, USA>
In Night People (1954), Gregory Peck played an American colonel Stephen Van Dyke who was in charge of an operation to return a kidnapped American soldier called John Leatherby. Image courtesy of eMoviePoster.
Kevin Brianton
Senior Lecturer Strategic Communication
As the Korean War petered out in 1953, and memories of the HUAC investigations began to fade, most of the real sting went out of anti-communist films. The new style of anti-communist film depicted Russia as a dangerous and determined enemy which had to be treated ruthlessly. In Night People (1954), Gregory Peck played an American colonel Stephen Van Dyke who was in charge of an operation to return a kidnapped American soldier called John Leatherby. The soldier had been kidnapped because the Russians wanted an anti-Nazi couple and hoped to swap the corporal for them. The film informed us that Himmler’s men now worked for the Russians, and they wanted their revenge on the couple.[1] The central conflict of the story rested between Van Dyke and the father of the soldier, ad American businessman Charles Leatherby played by Broderick Crawford. Leatherby felt that the Russians could be negotiated with as if they were hard-headed businessmen. Van Dyke refuted his ideas.
This is not a cash and
carry business. You are not dealing with
A & P. These are cannibals. Head hunting, blood thirsty cannibals who
want to eat us up.[2]
The conflict between civilians and the military in dealing with the Russians was one of the central themes in many anti-communist films. Originally called The Cannibals, the film plays out the emerging confidence of dealing with the Russians. Crawford was identified with the Eisenhower administration by the fact that he played golf and had heavy political connections. Peck was a soldier who was on the cutting edge of the cold war in Berlin.
Charles
Leatherby was a tough businessman who wanted results. He found that this attitude got him nowhere
in the cold war diplomacy of Berlin.
When he arrived at Berlin Airport, he asked State Department official
Frederick Hobart what the situation was:
HOBART:
It’s another big squeeze
apparently. We get them from time to
time. You know. Yesterday, they held up the autobans and
they cut phone lines into East Germany.
Anything they can think of to make nuisances of themselves.
LEATHERBY:
What do you think they want
really?
HOBART:
Well, for one thing they want us
out of here?
LEATHERBY:
Alright so we get out?
HOBART:
Then they may take a fancy to
Toledo.
LEATHERBY:
Are you trying to be funny?
HOBART:
… I’m only sure that whatever
happens is not isolated. They kidnap a
19 year old boy, your son, and we can’t tell if its just a local needle or
another Korea.[3]
By
the end of the film, Leatherby had seen the error of his ways and realised that
the military had the answers for the cold war.
He told Van Dyke that he could not let two innocent people be exchanged
for his son. Van Dyke replied that
although it was a major decision for Leatherby, that his opinions had never
mattered in the first place. The military,
not the civilians, made the decisions about dealing with the Russians.
Van
Dyke discovered that his mistress and contact with the Russians was a Soviet
spy and fooled the Russians by swapping her for the soldier. When it was needed, Van Dyke was ruthless. After strangling and punching his former
mistress, he had poisoned absinthe poured down her throat. Night
People showed a blend of the paranoia of the early anti-communist films
with the a return of an assurance that America had in its military. The opening sequence of marching soldiers,
tanks and helicopters was quite impressive as they moved across the wide
CinemaScope screen. Subversion still
existed, but it was not from within the American ranks. It is interesting that they spy had been carefully
replaced by Russians, rather than indoctrinated. The final scene had Van Dyke looking over the
skyline of Berlin confident that he could handle the Russians. The film added a note of reassurance to
anti-communist films that had been missing since The Big Lift. The more
positive tone appeared to helped it at the box office. Variety ranked it 51st, making
$2.1 million.
In
The McConnell Story (1955) directed
by Gordon Douglas, a General introduced the story of an American ace who shot
down more planes than any other person in Korea. He said that because of people like McConnell,
women were safe in their homes, children in their schools. People were free because ‘there are no chains
on your mind’.[4] When McConnell arrived in Korea, he was told
that this was the communist testing ground.
‘If they succeed here, there’ll be no part of the world that’ll be
safe’.[5] The role of the army was simply to slaughter
and make them think twice before trying anything again. There was no mention of subversion within the
American ranks. The threat was simply
external. The film was reasonably
popular and was ranked 27th by Variety
with rentals of $3.5 million.
[1] Linking the Soviet Union with the
German Nazis in the popular imagination to become a totalitarian blur is
discussed in Les K. Alder and Thomas G. Paterson, ‘Red Fascism: The Merger of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia
in the American Image of Totalitarianism, 1930s- 1950s,’ American Historical Review, April 1970, pp. 1046 – 1064.
One film which broke the anti-communist mould was Samuel Fuller’s Pickup on South Street (1953). Image courtesy of eMoviePoster
Kevin Brianton
Senior Lecturer, La Trobe University
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.
The American
Government would not arm its soldiers with guns made by amateurs. Neither should it arm … (the State)
Department with films by amateurs.[1]
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.
After
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
industry.
(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.[2]
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.
McCoy
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.
McCoy was not interested in seeking revenge until he has his own personal motives to do so. It is his love for Candy – not his political interests – that drive his revenge.
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’.[4] 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.’[5]
Most
other anti-communist films defended the role of the informer. In Pickup
On South Street, the stance on informing was reversed.
Director Sam 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. Image courtesy of eMoviePoster
Moe:
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”. [7]
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.[8]
[7] For a discussion of Fuller’s anti-communism and his views on national identity see Nicholas Garham, Fuller, Secker and Warburg in association with the British Film Institute, 1971, pp. 106 – 133.
My Son John was a serious attempt to alert America to, what director Leo McCarey considered, a dangerous and pressing threat. 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. Image from eMoviePoster
Kevin Brianton
Senior Lecturer, La Trobe University
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,[1] 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 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. Image courtesy of eMoviePoster.
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.
With
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.
He
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.[3] To scoff at the ten commandments was the
equivalent of extolling communism for DeMille who saw them as the moral basis
to fight communism.[4] Furthermore, to scoff was direct proof of
communist tendencies, hence the father’s righteous and violent reaction.
Director Leo McCarey watches Robert Walker and Helen Hayes. The relationship between Mother and Son was a bizarre subtext to this anti-Communist film. Image courtesy of eMoviePoster
DeMille
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.[5] 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.
John’s
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.[6] 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
communism.
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.[7] 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
get?
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.[8]
But
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.’[9] 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.[10] 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.’[11] John’s communism was the result of a
combination of anti-athletic, intellectual and homosexual tendencies.
In
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’.[12]
The
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.[13] 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.
In
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).
Lincoln
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!’[14] 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
class.
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…[15]
The
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.
The
final speech was quite different form Hayne’s original script.[16] 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.[17] 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.[18] 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.[19] 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,” [117] 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.
[3] Draft of final speech of My Son
John, Cecil B. DeMille Archives, Box 439, Folder 10, Brigham Young University,
Provo, Utah.
[4] A full discussion will be in the
chapter on biblical epics.
[5] 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.
[6] Undated draft script of My Son
John, Box 439, Folder 10, Cecil B. DeMille Archives, Box 439, Folder 10,
Brighan Young University, Provo, Utah.
[7] William Manchester, The Glory and the Dream A Narrative History
of America 1932 – 1972, Bantam, New York, 1975, pp. 625 – 626.
[8]New York Times, 18 March 1952.
At the end of the original script, John asks his mother to bake cookies
for him in prison.
[10] 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.
[11] 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.
[13] 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.
[14] 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.
[16] 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.
[18] Cecil B. DeMille to Leo McCarey,
3 April 1952. Cecil B. DeMille Archives,
Box 439, Folder 10, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.
[19] 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.
Walk East on Beacon was based on an article by FBI head J. Edgar Hoover called Crime of the Century which was published in Reader’s Digest in May 1951. Image courtesy of eMoviePoster
Kevin Brianton
Senior Lecturer, La Trobe University
In 1951 FBI head J. Edgar Hoover was offered $15,000 for the rights to his article in Readers Digest which was based on the Fuchs-Gold case. Hoover had written – or it had been ghost written – the article called Crime of the Century which was published in Reader’s Digest in May 1951. British atomic scientist Karl Fuchs and American Harry Gold gave nuclear secrets to the Russians. Hoover refused the offer but granted the movie rights. His biographer Curt Gentry argued that Hoover refused the money because of the links between the case and the controversial Rosenberg trial. Gentry said that Hoover only arrested Ethel Rosenberg as a ‘lever’ to get Julius to confess. A decision he greatly regretted. The FBI’s anti-communist stance was shown in Walk East on Beacon .[1] The FBI is depicted in glowing – if somewhat – ridiculous terms throughout the film. The New York Times wrote: ” Chief J. Edgar Hoover’s story, “The Crime of the Century,” is an absorbing affair, as the law, utilizing such varied aids as hidden cameras, lip readers, television equipment and the Coast Guard, efficiently tightens the net around its elusive quarry. And, in the course of the chase, it becomes increasingly obvious that the F. B. I. cooperated in the production.” Like Big Jim McLain, which praised HUAC, Walk East on Beacon praised the Bureau. It was released with publicity material which said the country was in danger and citizens should report espionage, sabotage or subversive activities, the chattering of aircraft for flights over restricted areas, suspicious individuals loitering near restricted areas, foreign submarine landings, poisoning of public water supplies, possession and distribution of foreign-inspired propaganda, unusual fires or explosions affecting vital industry, suspicious parachute landings and possession of radioactive material.[2]
HUAC had begun its investigation by interviewing selected labor and industry leaders in the film industry in March 1947. Listening to anti-communist figures in Hollywood did not provide HUAC chair J. Parnell Thomas and investigator Robert Stripling with enough evidence to proceed with a full investigation. They needed the FBI, which had been building up a massive dossier of communist involvement in Hollywood over the past three years. At first, Hoover declined to support the venture because he did not want HUAC linked to the FBI, but Thomas and Stripling promised discretion when they contacted Los Angeles FBI agent R. B. Hood for support. Under this agreement, Hoover arranged to assist the committee on the basis that the FBI remained unidentified. With this assurance, Hoover testified to it in an open session on March 26, 1947, where he declared “the aims and responsibilities” of the HUAC and the FBI were the same: “The protection of the internal security of the Nation.” Hoover used the opportunity to argue that the Communist Party was penetrating many “public opinion mediums,” particularly the film industry, and that it would achieve its goal of capturing American institutions through infiltration of the unions and creative outlets. Hoover said, “I would have no fears if more Americans possessed the zeal, the fervor, the persistence and the industry to learn about this menace of Red fascism. I do fear for the liberal and progressive who has been hoodwinked and duped into joining hands with the communists.” Hoover’s testimony to HUAC was a clear blurring of the lines between liberals and radicals. Congress further ordered that 250,000 copies of Hoover’s address were to be printed and distributed. The FBI and HUAC were now allies. The FBI would gather the evidence and the committee would disclose it. By making films about these entities were certainly trying to appease their new political masters.[3]
The plot was the unlikely plan about the blackmail and kidnapping of a scientist working on an important new computer called Falcon. Throughout the film, the FBI was depicted as a highly efficient organisation following up hundreds of leads. One such lead gives the name of a possible communist agent. The suspect was followed by FBI agents to the Polish freighter where he was substituted by an agent from Moscow who was able to use his papers. The Russian agent in turn was then followed by a series of FBI agents. The communists were involved in a complex plot to extort important mathematical formulae from a scientist Dr Krayer. The scientist’s son had been captured in East Germany and the communists told Krayer that he would be safe provided that the critical information he was working on was handed on to their agents.
Communists who left the party or who pretended to leave were subject to constant recall. One party member was threatened with blackmail after he was tracked down by his colleagues. He said that it was impossible to leave and informing to the FBI meant death.[4] Those who pretended to leave the party were only sleepers waiting to be activated by Moscow. Those people lived and worked in the community and could not be detected. Nevertheless, the FBI appeared as a ruthlessly efficient operation with thousands of agents working around the clock to stop subversion. The audience was reminded that foreign agents in the United States were given great freedoms. A list of agents who have been ‘sleeping’ for years before being activated was repeatedly shown.
The FBI enjoyed strong publicity from the film. The film was released with publicity material which said the country was in danger and citizens should report espionage, sabotage or subversive activities, the chattering of aircraft for flights over restricted areas, suspicious individuals loitering near restricted areas, foreign submarine landings, poisoning of public water supplies, possession and distribution of foreign-inspired propaganda, unusual fires or explosions affecting vital industry, suspicious parachute landings and possession of radioactive material. Image courtesy of eMoviePoster
Most of the film was about setting up an elaborate web to send the information to Moscow. The web included exchanging papers in parks, taxi cabs, airport lockers and other means. When this complex apparatus fell apart, the communists adopted the more direct route of kidnapping the scientist and smuggling him out of the country. The film ended with the capture of all the communist agents, but with a warning that hundreds of other plots were being hatched across the United States. The audience was told that a small group of highly trained communist agents can do the damage of millions. Yet, as critic Nora Sayre points out, these communist agents were grossly incompetent, allowing themselves to be followed, bugged and filmed at every turn.[5] When one communist courier was told that he was being followed by the FBI, he immediately walked over to the agent and said: ‘You’re FBI and I know you are following me.’[5] The stupidity of the communists may be explained by the scientist who attacked the communists saying that ‘minds in chains cannot think.’[6]
The
film claimed that the United States was blessed with great freedoms and this
could lead to its undoing. The message
of too much freedom, and freedoms being abused, was repeated in The FBI Story (1958) which also had the
backing of FBI head J. Edgar Hoover and Big
Jim McLain (1951). Despite those
comments, communist agents appeared to be subject to intensive surveillance
around the clock. They were filmed in parks, bugged in their houses, have their
mail opened and were constantly followed.
All this was in response to a single anonymous tip that a person may be
a communist. The FBI said that hundreds
of tips were received every day giving rise to an image of surveillance in the
United States of Orwellian dimensions. Walk East on Beacon was an image of
society where the only way to survive was in the hands of the FBI. Freedoms had to be given up to retain
freedom. The film was ranked 88th
in the Variety rankings taking in
$1.3 million.[7]
[1] See Curt Gentry, J. Edgar Hoover: The Man and His Secrets, Norton, New York, 1991 and Ronald Radosh and Joyce Milton, The Rosenberg File: A Search For Truth, Vintage, New York, 1984.
[3] Athan G. Theoharis, The FBI & American Democracy: A Brief Critical History (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2004), 89. O’Reilly, Red Menace, 89–91. Ellen Schrecker, The Age of McCarthyism: A Brief History with Documents (New York: Palgrave, 2002), 154–159.
[4]Walk East on Beacon, (d) Alfred Werker, Leo Rosten.
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. [1] 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.[2]
Crossfire is a 1947 film noir which deals with antisemitism. It was part of a liberal flowering of films in post war period. Image courtesy of eMoviePoster.
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.[3]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.[4] 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. [5] 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. Image courtesy of eMoviePoster.
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
Jim
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.’[6] 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.[7] It was the most successful of the anti-communist films of the early 1950s possibly because of the immense popularity of John Wayne.
According to the film’s Wikipedia entry “Nancy Olson (pictured left) hated the script but figured that six weeks in Hawaii and a chance to work with a star like John Wayne seemed a good enough reason to accept. She thought the film would flop and nobody would see it. She was right to a degree – it wasn’t one of Wayne’s more successful pictures – but she didn’t count on how often it would appear on television. She later said people stopped her all the time to mention it. Olson, a staunch liberal Democrat, said she and Wayne would often have political arguments but she would always let Wayne have the last word. ” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Jim_McLain Image courtesy of eMoviePoster.
[2] Gordon Kahn, Hollywood on Trial, Boni and Caer, New
York, 1948, p. 221.
[3] Peter Roffman and Jim Purdy, The
Hollywood Social Problem Film: Madness,
Despair and Politics From The Depression to the Fifties, Midland, USA,
1981, p. 278.
[4] Cobbett Steinberg, Reel Facts: The Movie Book of Records,
Vintage, New York, 1982, p. 20.
[5] For a treatment of the fears of the liberals in the Kennedy administration see David Halberstam The Best and the Brightest, Fawcett crest, USA, 1973.
[6]Big Jim McLain (d) Edward Ludwig, James Edward Grant.
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.[1]
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). Image courtesy of eMoviePoster.
Gary
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.[2] Touhy doesn’t like genius as he believed it
to be ‘dangerous’. He explained his
reasons to be compromised architect John Keating.
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.[3]
Roark
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
his assistant.
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
owns them.
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.[4]
Touhy
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.[5] 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.[6]
At
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.[7]
Despite
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’.[8]
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. [9]
Publicity for the film was firmly based on Ayn Rand’s novel. Image courtesy of eMoviePoster.
DeMille
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’.[10]
The
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
democracy.[11]
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.[12]
The
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.
[1] Raymond Durgnat and Scott
Simmon, King Vidor, American,
Universtiy of California Press, Berkeley, 1988, p. 263.
[9] 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.
[10] Ayn Rand to Cecil B. DeMille, 29
April 1949, Cecil B. DeMille Archives, Box 418, Folder 3, Brigham Young
University, Provo, Utah.
Pinky was a 1949 American drama about a light-skinned African – American woman who could pass as white.
Image courtesy of eMoviePoster.
Kevin Brianton
Senior Lecturer, La Trobe University
Liberalism and less extreme political viewpoints did not cease to exist after the Second World War. The political tensions in Hollywood remained between liberals and conservatives. Many looked to cinema as a way to project progressive idea and views, yet 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 were winning the Box Office, with Pinky being the second most popular film of 1949.[1]Pinky was a 1949 American drama about a light-skinned African – American woman who could pass as white.
But the popularity of
these films 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.[2]
The Red Scare period
reached its anti-communist climax in 1950. After trials lasting two years,
former State Department official Alger Hiss was convicted for perjury for his
alleged involvement in a Soviet spy ring on 25 January 1950. The case brought
former HUAC member Richard Nixon to national prominence – and would launch his political
career. On 9 February 1950, Senator Joseph McCarthy declared at a speech in
Wheeling, West Virginia, that there were 205 card-carrying members of the
Communist Party in the State Department. Even though the senator was a late
arrival on the anti-Communist scene, the sheer viciousness and near hysteria of
his anti-Communist campaign would designate the period the McCarthyite era.1
The political temperature was certainly on the rise in Hollywood. The Waldorf Statement, and even the imprisonment of the Hollywood Ten, did not end demands for stronger anti-Communist intervention. In May 1950 John Wayne, in his role as president of the Motion Picture Alliance, called for a complete delousing of the film industry. “Let us, in Hollywood, not be afraid to use the DDT,” he told newspapers. The blacklist created by the Waldorf Statement was only part of the equation. More corrosively, people could be put on a “graylist”—a list of those who were not Communists but were believed to have Communist sympathies. These people also could not obtain work.
On June 22, 1950, the American Business Consultants published a report titled Red Channels, listing 151 names of show business figures accused of Communist ties, including many in the film industry. The editors openly stated they were not interested in whether people actually were Communists, and the evidence presented was often fragmentary or simply incorrect. Even so, those who appeared in such a publication required a political clearance in order to return to work. The clearance process was haphazard, and people with no Communist connections could lose their livelihood. The Waldorf Statement had created within the film industry a toxic work environment, in which any self-styled patriotic organization could label any producer, actor, director, or writer a Communist and jeopardize his or her career. To heighten matters, on June 25, 1950, North Korea invaded South Korea—the Cold War had become hot. his 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.2
On June 22, 1950, the American Business Consultants published a report titled Red Channels, listing 151 names of show business figures accused of Communist ties, including many in the film industry.
While the studios were
beginning to bring out anti-communist films, the right began to look for other
targets. Not content with driving
communists out of Hollywood, the right turned its attention to films with
liberal messages – and by implication the liberals who write and directed them. Ayn Rand had written a Screen Guide for Americans in 1947 for the MPAPAI which said that
free enterprise, industrialists, and the independent man shouldn’t be smeared;
that failure and the collective shouldn’t be glorified; and that communist
writers, directors and producers shouldn’t be hired. The alliance did not see it as a ‘forced
restriction’ on Motion Picture studios, rather that each man should do ‘his own
thinking’ and for the guide to be adopted as a ‘voluntary action’. Its impact has been overstated. Rand told her
biographer that the guide had such a huge impact that it was printed in full on
the front page of arts section of the New
York Times; it was actually mentioned in summary in a column by Thomas F.
Brady on page 5 of the arts section on 16 November 1947. It was printed in full in an
ultra-conservative newsletter Plain Talk
in November 1947 which also featured articles on the influence of ‘communism on
youth’. Rand wrote that the guide aimed
to keep the screen free from any ‘collective force or pressure.’[3] The irony being that this was precisely what
the alliance was doing.
The real point of
Rand’s pamphlet was that only a conservative vision of America should be
allowed on the screen. The alliance
wanted the present wave of films which attacked or criticised capitalism
halted. One of alliance’s supporters,
Cecil B. DeMille was making similar speeches:
The American people know that with all its faults
capitalism has given them the highest standard of living and the greatest
personal freedom known in the world. The
communist cannot deny that. But they can
– and do – make a banker or a successful businessman their villain. They can – and do – pick out the sordid and
degraded parts of all America, leaving the audience – especially the foreign
audience – to infer that all America is a vast Tobacco Road and successful
people are all ‘little foxes’.[4]
The screenwriter of Little Foxes was Lilian Hellman who was
a prominent leftist and who was called before the HUAC hearings. Tobacco Road was a film about poor white
families being driven off their land in Georgia, directed by John Ford. Little
Foxes, directed William Wyler, dealt with an unscrupulous rich and powerful
family, who exploited their workers, and who would stop at nothing to cheat,
steal or kill each other. DeMille’s
reference to the banker was from another Wyler film Best Years ofOur Lives
(1946), where Fredric March played a banker who must overrule bank policy to
give a returning GI a loan for a small farm.
Both Ford and Wyler would play key roles in having DeMille removed from
the board of the Screen Directors Guild for his drive against liberal director
Joseph Mankiewicz.[5]
Ayn Rand had been
particularly upset about the 1947 HUAC hearings because she wanted to focus on
films such as Best Years of Our Lives
which she considered to be communist inspired.
Rand claimed the depiction of the banker undermined capitalism and
promoted communism. She told her
biographer Barbara Branden that she later spoke to HUAC chairman Parnell Thomas
and complained bitterly about her treatment before the committee. She said that Song of Russia was an ‘unimportant movie’ and it was not the worst
Hollywood had done. For Rand, it was
much more important to show the ‘really serious propaganda’.[6] 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.
Ayn Rand had been particularly upset about the 1947 HUAC hearings because she wanted to focus on films such as Best Years of Our Lives which she considered to be communist inspired.
Image courtesy of eMoviePoster.
In their survey of
films about the Second World War, Koppes and Black have shown that the
underlying message of films about the home front was one of promise. Sacrifices made during the war would bring
security and prosperity in the post-war world.
They concluded that Hollywood helped foster the social myth that social
problems were the result of individual flaws.
Problems could be easily identified and simply resolved.[7] The success of The Best Years of Our Lives in 1946 reflected an appetite for a
more realistic approach by audiences and film makers after the Second World War
to social problems. The film contained
muted, but well focused criticism, of the capitalist system and the hardships
faced by returning servicemen. Although
the film was critical of American society, it was also optimistic, with all the
characters adapting to their new lives. In
1946, the film scooped the Oscars and was the most successful film of the
year. After the 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 opinions by
creating fear in Hollywood. Wyler said
fear would lead to self-censorship and eventually the screen would be
paralysed.[8] These films were bitterly
opposed by ultra-conservatives such as Ayn Rand because they criticised the
aspects of the capitalist system. According
to Rand, Thomas said that because the press coverage had been so damning, that
if an acclaimed film like Best Years of
Our Lives was attacked, there would be a furor.[9]
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.[10]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. 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. 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. The blacklist was now in full force and the content of films was effectively being censored.
[1] Cobbett Steinberg, Reel Facts: The Movie Book of Records,
Vintage, New York, 1982, p. 20.
[2] For a treatment of the fears of
the liberals in the Kennedy administration see David Halberstam The Best and the Brightest, Fawcett
crest, USA, 1973.
[3] Motion Picture Alliance For the
Preservation of American Ideals, Screen Guide For Americans, 1947 p. 1. See
also Branden, p.199
[4] ‘Spotlight on Hollywood’, 9
October 1947, Cecil B. DeMille Archives, Box 212, Folder 1. Tobacco
Road was directed by John Ford and Little
Foxes was directed by William Wyler.
[5] For a full account see Kevin
Brianton, Hollywood Divided.
Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 2016.
[7] Clayton R. Koppes and Gregory D.
Black, Hollywood Goes To War: How
Politics, Profits and Propaganda Shaped World War II Movies, Free Press,
New York, 1987, pp. 143-184.
[8] Gordon Kahn, Hollywood on Trial, Boni and Caer, New
York, 1948, p. 221.
[10] Peter Roffman and Jim Purdy, The
Hollywood Social Problem Film: Madness,
Despair and Politics From The Depression to the Fifties, Midland, USA,
1981, p. 278.