{"id":40763,"date":"2018-01-17T07:19:51","date_gmt":"2018-01-17T15:19:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/studentfilmreviews.org\/?p=40763"},"modified":"2018-01-17T07:22:37","modified_gmt":"2018-01-17T15:22:37","slug":"caught-in-the-crossfire-the-effects-of-hollywood-blacklisting","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/studentfilmreviews.org\/?p=40763","title":{"rendered":"Caught in the Crossfire: The Effects of Hollywood Blacklisting"},"content":{"rendered":"

Paper by Hollyn Heron.<\/p>\n

\"\"\u201cAre you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?\u201d
\nThose were the words heard by the infamous \u201cHollywood Ten\u201d when they were subpoenaed and put on trial for supposed involvement with the Communist Party. Following WWII, top leaders in the United States Congress had a gratuitous, growing fear of the spread of communism, which they considered to be the greatest threat to the United States at the time. While many American citizens were put on trial, the Second Red Scare had many damaging effects on Hollywood, and the careers of many talented writers (Lewis, 197).<\/p>\n

Following the end of WWII, and on the cusp of the Cold War, fear of the spread of fascism and communism was at an all-time high, and the United States wasn\u2019t taking any chances as they were recovering from not only the war, but the Great Depression (Stafford). Between 1947 and 1957, the US government led a witch-hunt throughout the United States, aiming to wipe out any possible threat of infiltration from communism. The fear that communism would spread, and capitalism would fail, was a result of the United States economy finally beginning to make a comeback after the crash of 1929. The economy wasn\u2019t the only thing at risk if communism spread, though. The idea was that if the political ideology made its way into the U.S. the Soviet Union could expand its military powers (History.com)<\/p>\n

So why was Hollywood targeted? The FBI already had an eye on Hollywood,
\nthanks to what they saw as constant moral corruption by its constant portrayal of sex,
\nviolence and crime in the movies, which seemed glorified to many (PBS). Furthermore,
\nmany actors and studio workers had started to see the appeal of leftists organizations
\nfollowing the struggles of The Great Depression. In the eyes of the government,
\nHollywood had become a vital center for communist activity. Aside from the growing
\nsuspicion that communism had already found its way into Hollywood, the FBI saw the
\npotential for Hollywood to use its own influence to gain more followers by using films as
\npro-communism propaganda (History.com). The FBI felt that they had to step in.
\nFormed in 1938 as a temporary committee, the House Un-American Activities
\nCommittee, otherwise knowns as HUAC, was established in order to combat possible
\nspies from Communist countries. Led by Senator Joseph McCarthy, (whose name
\nwould eventually become synonymous with anti-Communist ideology), J. Edgar Hoover,
\nHUAC, and the FBI sought out any individual who displayed any \u201canti-American\u201d
\nbehaviour, or anyone suspected of being affiliated with the communist party. Operating
\nunder congressional leadership, the HUAC was able to subpoena those who were
\nsuspected, and order them to attend a hearing, in which the accused would be
\nrelentlessly questioned about possible ties to communism, and asked to provide names.
\nThe targets also included those in the academic community and individuals that had a
\n (Stafford foreign sounding last name. What this meant for Hollywood, since a lot of the studios
\n were led by people of Jewish descent, was all too easy of a target. A driving force
\n behind targeting Hollywood studio execs was the HUAC distrust of Jewish executives,
\n as it was the belief that the Jewish ideals aligned with communism (Lewis, 199). The
\n HUAC operated under the belief that communist spies had become involved in the
\n Hollywood system, and had put hidden messages of communist propaganda in films.
\n Though there was an assumption that Communists were very intelligent and sneaky,
\n and that the messages might be veiled, the HUAC still saw fit to attempt to censor
\n scripts (Lewis, 199). The HUAC began watching films closely, to try and spot any
\n suspicious content.<\/p>\n

One film that had raised eyebrows among the FBI and the HUAC, was Edward
\n Dmytryk\u2019s Crossfire (1947). The film had what was considered to be controversial
\n themes dealing with anti-Semitism, and appeared to some to be a message that was
\n Communist in nature. Three months following the release of the film, Dmytryk was
\n subpoenaed by the HUAC to testify in a hearing (Fox). Dmytryk had at one time been
\n considered one of Hollywood’s rising directors (Andrews) but his career was put on hold
\n when he was accused of having communist ties following the films release, and became
\n one of the \u201cHollywood Ten.\u201d Dmytryk was jailed after refusing to incriminate himself, but
\n eventually decided to cooperate with the government. Dmytryk listed more than 20
\n names of fellow directors and screenwriters for the HUAC to investigate. (History.com)
\n Following his cooperation, Dmytryk was able to start working in Hollywood again, which
\n was better treatment than what some of the other \u201cHollywood Ten\u201d received. (Stafford)
\n On the other hand, the anti-Communists had their own films to make. The films
\n produced ranged in a variety of different platforms designed to reach a multitude of
\n audiences, including children. The short cartoon, Make Mine Freedom, produced by
\n Harding College in 1948, excessively glorified capitalism by painting communism as a
\n villainous character that aimed to swindle the common American out of freedom. But
\n luckily, the common American is too savvy to believe in communism, and so capitalism
\n prevails. Through animation and commentary, Make Mine Freedom explains why
\n capitalism is good by using the auto industry to illustrate the American Dream. The
\n bottom line of the film was that all the freedoms the common American enjoyed and
\n loved was to be stripped away under communism. This was a common tactic used in
\n making anti-communist propaganda films (archive.org).<\/p>\n

Although several small shorts and feature films were made during the time, there
\n was one that stood out and became a classic in the \u201canti-communist propaganda\u201d genre
\n (Pearson). Written by Albert Demond and directed by R. G. Springsteen The Red
\n Menace was released in 1949 (Imdb.com). The film follows the story of several people
\n who get swept up by the allure of the communist party. Promising to make the world a
\n better place, the communist party preys upon the poor who have struggled their whole
\n lives, giving them false hope. The film was attempting the illusion of a documentary,
\n with a rigid script that failed to explain communism accurately, but portrayed it through
\n the eyes of fear mongers (Crowther). Once the key characters realize that they no
\n longer want to be involved in the party, they try to make a run for it. Their departure from
\n the party is portrayed as if they are escaping a cult, and not a political organization. The
\nfilm was blatant propaganda, warning against involvement with the communist party, on the basis that members would immediately regret it; that the party was not all that it was cracked up to be.
\n But producing propaganda was the minimal action being taken to combat the
\n spread of communism. While cooperating studios were working hard to make anti-
\n communist films, the HUAC made its move on Hollywood. In the fall of 1947, the
\n hearings began. In an attempt to gain public sympathy, the HUAC called a number of
\n people, known as \u201cfriendly witnesses,\u201d who were known to hold strict, conservative
\n views, and to also be sympathetic to the HUAC cause, such as Robert Taylor, and Gary
\n Cooper, to testify against communism. These people did not need to be subpoenaed,
\n but were simply asked to appear (PBS).<\/p>\n

Though there were many people in Hollywood whose names were mentioned
\n and ultimately subpoenaed during the Red Scare, the Hollywood Ten stood out among
\n the others. These were the people who publicly spoke out against the HUAC and their
\n accusations about messages put in films, as well as their tactics used against the
\n accused. The Hollywood Blacklist was comprised of many writers and executives, who
\n had been accused by J. Edgar Hoover himself of having communist ties (
\n The Hollywood Ten, (Alvah Bessie, Herbert Biberman, Lester Cole, Edward Dmytryk,
\n Ring Lardner Jr., John Howard Lawson, Albert Maltz, Samuel Ornitz, Robert Adrian
\n Scott, and Dalton Trumbo) were all summoned to hearings to defend themselves
\n against the allegations of having ties to communism. Deemed as \u201cunfriendly\u201d witnesses
\n for their unwillingness to cooperate during the hearings, each of them refused to answer
\n questions and pleaded the fifth amendment. One member of the Hollywood Ten, John
\n Howard Lawson, was so outraged during his hearing, he protested the court by yelling,
\n \u201cI am not on trial here, this committee is on trial!\u201d (History.com). All eventually served
\n jail time and were fined $1000 due to contempt of congress and were blacklisted,
\n (Dmytryk excluded) forbidding them from working in the Hollywood system. Many
\n executives in Hollywood did not want any link to the accused or communism, and
\n agreed to the blacklist. Though it was later determined that while many of those who
\n were accused may have been communist sympathizers, there was never any concrete
\n evidence linking them officially to the communist party. (History.com)
\n However, there were some who still wrote screenplays, though they ended up
\n using a pseudonym while the blacklist was still in place. Following the blacklist, Dalton
\n Trumbo began writing screenplays anonymously in addition to under a pseudonym
\n (PBS.org). It is believed that Trumbo wrote more than 30 screenplays under a false
\n identity, but since many were written anonymously, no one is sure what the actual
\n number is. One thing that is known is that Trumbo wrote a number of screenplays,
\n including the film The Brave One, under the name \u201cRobert Rich.\u201d In 1956, The Brave<\/p>\n

One, won an Academy Award for best original screenplay, which had come as a
\nsurprise to many in the industry. More surprising, was the writer, Robert Rich was
\nnowhere to be found. This was the opportunity Trumbo had waited for, and used the
\npublicity he received to openly protest the blacklist. (PBS.org) Following his win for The
\nBrave One, Trumbo was able to receive credit for several films that he had written
\nprior.<\/p>\n

It was during his accusations and trial that Trumbo had found an ally in non-other
\nBuhle, 129). Chaplin, disgusted by the tactics used by the FBI and HUAC,
\n donated money to Trumbo\u2019s defense fund. This was more than enough evidence
\n needed to officially label Chaplin as at least a communist sympathizer. The FBI began
\n accumulating a file on Chaplin, which during the entire investigation, ended up being
\n more than two thousand pages long (History.com). At the time Chaplin had lived in the
\n United States for more than 40 years (Telegraph), but that fact did not sway the FBI
\n from their accusations. In 1948, Chaplin was put on the blacklist, and was barred from
\n working in Hollywood. Chaplin had protested this decision, declaring:
\n\u201cI do not want to create any revolution. All I want to create is a few more
\n films. I might amuse people. I hope so.\u201d (Telegraph)
\n Despite the blacklist, Chaplin stood his ground. Chaplin, who was no stranger to
\n controversy, and not opposed to asserting his stance on issues, remained outspoken
\n about his views on the handling of the communist investigation. Sadly, this led to more
\n than Chaplin being blacklisted from Hollywood. During a trip to England for the first time
\n in 21 years, Chaplin learned that if he were to return to the United States, the FBI would
\n be waiting to arrest him (Telegraph). Chaplin made the decision to not return to the
\n Hollywood. And on September 19th, 1952, Charlie Chaplin was exiled from the United
\n States (History.com).
\n In his final leading role, Chaplin wrote, directed and starred in A King in New
\n York (1957). The film was released in Europe during the closing years of the blacklist,
\n but because of Chaplin\u2019s exile from the United States, the film was not released in the
\n U.S. until 1973 (History.com).The film focuses on King Igor Shahdov (Chaplin) of
\n Estrovia, who travels to New York following the revolution in his own country. The film is
\n considered to be Chaplin\u2019s response to Hollywood\u2019s blacklisting and overall censorship
\n of films. Chaplin, who was considered a master at satire, uses every opportunity in the
\n film to oppose and parody the actions carried out by the HUAC. He takes aim at the
\n HUAC as Shahdov is approached several times, and offered money in order to perform
\n in front of the camera. The suggestion is that people can be \u201cbought\u201d and convinced to
\n do things they would not normally do as long as there is a price.
\n Shahdov is given a tour of a very progressive school where he meets many
\n young children. One child, Rupert (Michael Chaplin, Charlie\u2019s son) is dubbed \u201ca young
\n historian.\u201d Rupert, is sitting by himself reading a book, which we find out is Karl Marx,
\n the father of Communism. Shahdov asks Rupert,
\n \u201cSurely you\u2019re not a Communist?\u201d
\n Rupert asks him,
\n \u201cDo I have to be a Communist to read Karl Marx?\u201d
\n This Conversation between Shahdov and Rupert is not subtle in the least bit. It is
\n a valid question. Rupert himself, unquestionably embodies Chaplin\u2019s stance during the
\n blacklisting, asking questions about freedom, and passports. During his entire speech,
\n Rupert preaches about the hypocrisy of a government that boasts about freedom, yet
\n tells the citizens what they can and cannot practice.
\n But anti-Communist behaviour is not the only target in Chaplin film. Chaplin also
\n takes a shot at the censorship that is being imposed on Hollywood. While touring the
\n same progressive school where he meets the child historian, he takes a look at the art
\n the children are making. Shahdov approaches a young boy making a sculpture. He
\n asks what he is making, and the boy replies, \u201cA fig leaf.\u201d Shahdov responds,<\/p>\n

\u201cInteresting?\u201d To which the boy angrily responds, \u201cNothing interesting about a fig leaf!\u201d
\n as he slams the fig leaf over what would be the genitalia of his sculpture. This implies
\n that his art is being highly censored, and is also a nod to the censoring of early
\n sculptures, as most private parts were covered with fig leaves. This can be considered
\n one way Chaplin strikes back at the censorship in films; claiming that creativity is
\n encouraged, while at the same time hindering it by imposing rules on art.
\n Chaplin did not hold back in A King in New York, attacking everything from
\n Hollywood’s beauty standards by having the Shahdov resigning himself to plastic
\n surgery, to commercialization of the Hollywood system.
\n Considering that many on the blacklist had written scripts under pseudonyms, it
\n became clear that the blacklist was hindering the once booming and creative industry.
\n While some writers had been blacklisted from making films in Hollywood, Television
\n was on the rise and many writers found news homes writing for T.V. and the movie
\n industry was beginning to lose money (PBS). In order to keep the movie industry from
\n collapsing on itself, there was no choice but to reconsider and reconstruct the practices
\n and policies brought on by the HUAC and FBI. And so, the blacklist came to an end in
\n the 1960\u2019s. (Lewis, 231)
\n The blacklist for those affiliated with communism may have ended more than 50
\n years ago, but do the effects still reverberate today? Luckily, in today\u2019s Hollywood
\n system, there isn\u2019t too much to worry about when it comes to the affiliation with certain
\n religions or political organizations. Celebrities are free to practice whatever religion they
\n seem fit, and are a part of many different political organizations. Many use their celebrity
\n power to speak out on events and policies, much like Chaplin did. But the blacklist and
\n communist witch-hunt may have had a different outcome. While censorship in films still
\n exists, the guidelines are not nearly as strict. And when it comes to the
\n unsavory behavior of celebrities, and studio moguls, there is an astronomical amount of
\n leniency given to those who bring in the audiences and therefore the money; something
\n that was not taken into consideration during the red scare. Presently, it takes many
\n allegations, and several years for a member of Hollywood to lose their clout that they
\n once had. While maybe not a direct correlation, one has to wonder if the fear of losing
\n money again hinders any form of large scale blacklist from ever occurring again.<\/p>\n

Work Cited<\/strong><\/p>\n

Crowther, Bosley . \u201cThe Red Menace,’ Dealing With Communist Party in U. S., Shown
\nat the Mayfair.\u201d The New York Times, 27 June 1949, www.nytimes.com\/movie\/review?res=940DE5DE113CE23BBC4F51DFB0668382659E DE.
\nSpringsteen, R. G. director, The Red Menace, Republic Pictures, USA, 1949 Chaplin, Charles, director, A King in New York Attica Film Company, UK, 1957
\nLewis, John, American Film: A History. W. W. Norton & Company, 2008
\nBuhle, Paul and Dave Wagner. Hide in Plain Sight; The Hollywood Blacklistees in Film and
\nTelevision, 1950-2002. Palgrave Macmillan, 2003
\nDmytryk, Edward, director, Crossfire. RKO Radio Pictures, USA, 1947
\nMake Mine Freedom, Harding College, John Sutherland Productions and Metro-Goldwyn
\nMeyer (MGM), 1948, Retrieved 1 November 2017 https:\/\/archive.org\/details\/MakeMine1948
\nPearson, Glenda, The Red Scare: A Filmography 5 March, 1998. Update, 19 September, 2011. Retrieved, 19 October, 2017 http:\/\/guides.lib.uw.edu\/c.php?g=341346&p=2303736
\nPBS Learning Media, HUAC: Backlash and Implications. Thirteen\/WNET New York.
\nEducational Broadcasting Corporation, 2002. Retrieved, 25, October 2017
\nhttps:\/\/www.pbslearningmedia.org\/resource\/aml15.ela.lit.backlash\/huac-backlash-and- implications\/#.WgURDGhSyUl
\nThe Telegraph, Why Was Charlie Chaplin Banned From the US? Telegraph Media Group, 19 September, 2016. Retrieved 31, October, 2017 http:\/\/www.telegraph.co.uk\/only-in-
\nbritain\/charlie-chaplin-barred-from-us\/
\nAndrews, Evan, 7 Artists Whose Careers were Almost Derailed by the Hollywood Blacklist, 11, July 2016.
\nRetrieved 15 October, 2017 http:\/\/www.history.com\/news\/history-lists\/7-famous- victims-of-the-hollywood-blacklist
\nPBS Socal, About Dalton Trumbo, Thirteen\/WNET 2016, 11 August, 2009. Retrieved 29 October, 2017 http:\/\/www.pbs.org\/wnet\/americanmasters\/dalton-trumbo-about-dalton-
\ntrumbo\/1166\/
\nFox, Darryl, Film History, Vol 3, Crossfire and HUAC: Surviving the Slings and Arrows of the Committee
\nIndiana University Press, 1989. Retrieved 20 October 2017
\nhttps:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/3815077?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
\nHistory.com Hollywood Ten 2017, A&E Television Networks, Retrieved 21 October, 2017 http:\/\/www.history.com\/topics\/cold-war\/hollywood-ten
\nStafford, Jeff Crossfire, (article) 2017 Turner Classic Movies. Retrieved 25 October, 2017 http:\/\/www.tcm.com\/this-month\/article\/86527%7C0\/Crossfire.html
\nInternet Movie Database, IMDB.com<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Paper by Hollyn Heron. \u201cAre you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?\u201d Those were the words heard by the infamous \u201cHollywood Ten\u201d when they were subpoenaed and put on trial for supposed involvement with the Communist Party. Following WWII, top leaders in the United States Congress had a gratuitous, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":504,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[72,3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-40763","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-academic-papers","category-films"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/studentfilmreviews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40763","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/studentfilmreviews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/studentfilmreviews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/studentfilmreviews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/504"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/studentfilmreviews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=40763"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/studentfilmreviews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40763\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/studentfilmreviews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=40763"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/studentfilmreviews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=40763"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/studentfilmreviews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=40763"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}