Posted on 04/18/2005 10:47:45 AM PDT by Liz
In 1947, the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) began a series of official inquiries into the penetration of the Hollywood film industry by the American Communist Party (CPUSA).
Major public hearings were held in 1947 and 1951, with smaller hearings throughout the mid-1950s. In the course of these inquiries, dozens of “friendly” Hollywood witnesses denounced hundreds of people as secret members of the Communist Party, while dozens of “unfriendly” witnesses refused to discuss their politics with the Committee. Those who were either publicly or privately denounced as members of the CPUSA found it almost impossible to get employment in the motion-picture industry for at least for a decade.
The most famous victims of the resulting blacklist were the original group of “unfriendly” witnesses, known as the “Unfriendly Ten” or “Hollywood Ten.” These individuals–mostly screenwriters– refused to give political information about themselves before HUAC in October 1947.1
The blacklist functioned in part officially, as demonstrated by a joint public announcement of the motion picture firms in November 1947 that henceforth no studio would knowingly employ any member of the Communist Party, or the members of any other group which advocated the overthrow of the United States government by revolution.
The blacklist also operated unofficially, through instruments such as the irresponsible red-baiting newsletter Red Channels, which named whole swaths of people as subversives. This, for example, ruined the career of the left-wing but non-Communist actress Marsha Hunt. 2
The blacklist also often functioned in secret: jobs just dried up. As a result, “fixers” emerged to get people unofficially “pardoned” by anti-Communist organizations and film industry managers, therefore making them employable again. One famous “fixer” was the fiercely anti-Communist actor Ward Bond. 3
“Fronts” arose as well in the form of people offering scripts ghost-written by blacklisted screenwriters in exchange for official credit for the script and often a cut of the payment. One famous example of such a “front” was Philip Yordan, himself a quite famous screenwriter. 4
Some film careers were totally destroyed as a result of the blacklist system. For instance, Mickey Knox, “the next John Garfield,” was a rising star of the late 1940s, turning in a star performance in the great gangster film White Heat (1949). If you have never heard of Mickey Knox, well, that is the point. Many other careers suffered severe setbacks, such as that of actor Howard Da Silva. 5
Actors and directors suffered more severely than screenwriters because they could not act or direct under assumed names, whereas screenwriters could use the “front” system, which allowed the most talented of them to continue to write. The CPUSA, however, had made its largest inroads in Hollywood among screenwriters, and many screenwriters’ careers suffered greatly or ended.
It is generally not a good idea to attack professional writers because they tend to write, and to write well, to get in the last word. This has certainly been the case with the blacklist. None of the HUAC committee or staff (which originally included Congressman Richard M. Nixon) has written memorably on the events of 1947 and 1951, let alone on the later, smaller investigations.
A few of those who appeared as “friendly witnesses” before HUAC, such as directors Edward Dmytryk and Elia Kazan, and actor Sterling Hayden. have written important memoirs, often defending their conduct and sometimes expressing self-doubt. 6
But such figures are far outnumbered by the self-justifying and bitter memoirs of those who were denounced: Norma Barzman; Walter Bernstein; Alvah Bessie; Herbert Biberman; Conrad Bromberg; Lester Cole; Lillian Hellman; Howard Koch; Ring Lardner, Jr. (and now his daughter Kate); Donald Ogden Stewart; Dalton Trumbo; and Ella Winter. 7
The publication of these works, and more fundamentally the cultural shift in Hollywood to domination by a bien peasant Left that started around 1960 and accelerated in the 1970s, has led to the lionization of the Unfriendly Ten as American “rebels” and martyred “non-conformists.”
Meanwhile, the anger within the current filmmaking elite at those who originally “named names” in the 1940s and 1950s has been unremitting. A now unalterable view of what occurred is held by people who have little knowledge of what it actually meant in the 1940s to be a Communist; that is, a Stalinist. Two examples demonstrate the current political situation.
Long read---rest at link.
Oh...well, I never much cared for that movie,but perhaps I should give it anoyther look-see.
Oh...well, I never much cared for that movie,but perhaps I should give it anoyther look-see.
Then go to bed...I'm off in a bit as well.
I agree!
If not tomorrow, the when I get back.
Long read, but outstanding. If anything, I'm even more determined to not support Hollywood. They may not be official CPUSA members, but it's pretty darned clear where the money goes and the blatant propaganda in today's film. I'm not even interested in supporting the films that aren't propagandized, because the money winds up in the same place.
You might like this one too.
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0021,harkavy,15052,5.html
Wal-Mart’s First Lady
Hillary’s Past Belies Her Support of Labor
This thread was posted on the communist infiltration of Hollywood, i.e., art and media used to advance an agenda.
Maybe you didn't understand my 'drawing in' reference. If I had an agenda, I would create movies to build a following. Then I would slowly introduce my talking points/messages/lines of thought into them once I have a following. And I wouldn't do it all at once, it would slowly be introduced.
I'm not debating film makers specifically. I don't follow art and media. I'm telling you how marketing and propaganda works.
And no, I won't be nice to you. You have already posted your thoughts on 'fashionable' communism. You will never earn my respect.
Pssst, Fedora...
Party at nopardon's house while she is on vacation!
I'll bring the capucciano!
Thank you for that link!
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0021,harkavy,15052,5.html
Wal-Mart’s First Lady
Hillary’s Past Belies Her Support of Labor
There are a few things in there that supports my thoughts that I had here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1386052/posts?page=110#110
Records from the Soviet Union recently released show that McCarthy was right on about Communist infiltration into our government and into Hollywood.
The Media lied to us when they started to attack McCarthy....because they were communists or supported communist policies here in the US.
McCarthy is an American Hero and should be recognized as so.
The Hollywood Ten aside, it's a free country. See the movies you like, skip the ones you don't.
If there was no Hollywood there would be no Mel Gibson.
Very good post.
Assuming that you've read the book, will you not share one crime committeed by at least one of the blacklisted Hollywood 10? That was the original question, not what the "American commies" did. I'm not really looking for you do my research for me, as what I've read about a few of these folks tends to make me think they were guilty of thought crimes.
Ann Coulter's recent book makes the case so well.
Filmmakers are master manipulators of unsuspecting audiences. They do not use sledgehammers to get their points across It's all done very subtly.
Film is one of the most effective ways to proselytize. The world's most notorious villain--Adolf Hitler--who has no peer in the annals of criminality---was very aware of the value of good propaganda to advance his hidden political agenda. In an official act, he appointed filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl to produce Nazi propaganda films and gave her a free hand to build the technicolor myth of Hitler-as-savior----thus facilitating the heinous, genocidal Nazi juggernaut.
bump!
I just reviewed your posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1386052/posts?page=60#60
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1386052/posts?page=64#64
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1386052/posts?page=65#65
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1386052/posts?page=68#68
No it is not clear at all that you were making a qualitative statement from the way you defend the 'free speech' of people being part of a fashionable communist click.
But I will lend you the benefit of doubt and apologize for assuming you were stating it as fashionable.
But I don't get warm fuzzies from you defending them.
Ciao.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.