Edward Dmytryk vs. the Blacklist

“Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?”

Before you answer, please understand: this is not a Yes or No question.

There is no point wasting taxpayer money to ask you this, because the incentive to lie is too great.  If we cared about the answer—and we do—we would want a more efficient and reliable method of gathering that information.  And so, you are here, being asked this question, because we already know that you are a Communist.  Someone you know has already given us this information.  What this means, of course, is that you better not answer “No.”  That would be perjury, and you will go to jail.

That doesn’t mean the correct answer is “Yes,” either.  That won’t get you anywhere.

Think of it as a game of tag.  Right now you’re “it,” and you need to tag someone else.  Last one standing loses.  You see, when we ask, have you been a member of the Communist Party, what we really mean is, who else with you is a member of the Communist Party?

Now, maybe you don’t want to betray your friends.  Maybe you don’t want to play this game: you’ve got an idea that it’s rigged, that no one wins.  But just to be clear: if you don’t play, you are certain to lose—you job, your friends, your reputation.  We will charge you with Contempt of Congress and you will go to jail, and everyone will assume you have something to hide.

The Blacklist was an absurd joke with real casualties.  In what universe could anyone think filmmakers were a threat to national security? Why did Congress even care about the political affiliations of screenwriters—the lowliest and most unloved of all Hollywood’s drones?  It’s not like anyone was alleging that Hollywood’s Communists were spies, or saboteurs, or assassins.  So why bother?

Let’s dispense with the easy answer first: for some attention-hungry and cynical politicians, attacking Hollywood was a cheap way of looking like they were doing something about the existential crisis of the Cold War.  They could look heroic and patriotic and bold, without having to do much more than grandstand.  And in the mob psychology that was whipped up, it was very hard for anyone to resist the Red Scare without looking like one of the enemies of the state.

But let’s set that answer aside, because there’s something more interesting, and more problematic, to deal with instead.

The Cold War was not fought with bombs and bullets—it was fought with rhetoric and symbolism.  Khrushchev pounding his shoe on the table, “Ich bin ein Berliner,” mobs of German youths tearing the Berlin Wall down—and aside from these ostentatious examples of symbolism hid the quieter war of information management, of spies and codes and defectors full of secrets.  And on the home front, American popular culture promoted American values both domestically and abroad.  Whoever controls the media controls the message.  Put another way, movies are a matter of national security.

And then there’s this: Hollywood’s leftists actually did use their positions as filmmakers to advance progressive values to a mass audience.  They genuinely did see moviemaking as a moral endeavor, with a proselytizing mandate.  They made themselves into targets.

To tell the story that follows, we need to make this clear: the Blacklist was not an official thing.  Here’s how it played out—Congress called people in, to account for their political beliefs.  Then, a group of ten filmmakers—the Hollywood Ten—refused to play.  They stood on principle, insisting that the Constitutional protections of freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom from self-incrimination were important American values, and that HUAC’s activities were the only genuinely un-American thing going on.  All ten were charged with Contempt of Congress; all ten served jail time.

This posed a significant public relations problem for Hollywood.  They didn’t want audiences to rebel against movies, thinking they were being made by subversives who defy the American government.  So the studios barred the alleged subversives from making movies.  This was how the Blacklist was born—not something imposed by the government but a desperate attempt by studios to shield themselves from audience revolt.

As a PR gesture, it had flexibility.  The studios did this with an awareness that their policy was depriving them of tremendous amounts of talent.  Blacklisted personnel were able to continue working, as long as it could be done in secret.  This was easier for screenwriters, whose work could be concealed behind a false name or a front, than it was for actors and directors who could not disguise their participation.

Christ in Concrete was created the exact opposite way: it was made by a team of outlaws (director Edward Dmytryk, one of the notorious Ten, screenwriter Ben Barzman, star Sam Wannamaker) who made a point of foregrounding their involvement.  Unable to work in Hollywood, they set up shop in England to make the film independently.  The point of the exercise was to break the Blacklist.  The plan was to make a film of undeniable high-brow quality and sharp political content, with Dmytryk’s name brazenly affixed above the title, and when audiences and critics flocked to the film it would prove that the Blacklist was a silly waste.  The madness would end.

The fact that you reading this know what I mean by the phrase “Blacklist” but probably have never heard of Christ in Concrete is a clear sign that this plan went off the rails.  It was a fine and noble idea—but the facts on the ground didn’t play out that way.

Christ in Concrete started as a book—and an extraordinary one at that.  But actually, it didn’t start as a book at all—it started in real life, on Good Friday, 1922.  On that day, a construction worker named Geremio di Donato was killed in a bricklaying accident and buried in concrete.  His body was not recovered until Easter Sunday—a religious portend that weighs heavily on the imagination of his eldest son, Pietro.  At age 12, Pietro is now the “man” of the family, responsible for his illiterate mother and six destitute siblings.  He takes over his dead father’s job laying bricks—what else is there to do?

But he is a sensitive and intelligent young man, who has been given one hell of a chip to carry around on his shoulder.  He seethes with rage at how America can abandon its workers in their greatest need, can allow hardworking citizens to die so that others might profit.  The death of Geremio has thrust young Pietro into an Oedipal situation as a surrogate for his father, radicalized him, and forced him into one of the most dangerous of trades just as the Great Depression revealed the ugliest face of American capitalism.  In the 21st century, he might have “occupied” New York.  Pietro did something else.

He wrote a book.  And it became a best-seller and a household name.  In 1939, an agent of his publisher Bobbs-Merrill came to the construction site where Pietro was still stacking bricks and mortar together, and handed him a royalty check for more money than the di Donato family had ever seen before.  Pietro promptly chucked his tools into the river and stalked off the construction site, never to return.  From then until his death in 1992, he was a literary celebrity, activist, raconteur, and libertine.  He left behind a body of work that scholars continue to explore.

In 1946, his agent Lucy Kroll started shopping movie rights to Christ in Concrete.  She made a connection with producer Rodney Geiger, who had just risen to some acclaim for producing Roberto Rossellini’s Open City.  Geiger had hired Pietro di Donato to write the English subtitles for the US release of Open City, and the two men formed a bond.  By 1947, Geiger was making plans to produce a movie version of Christ in Concrete in Italy, to be directed by Rossellini.

That didn’t happen.  Adaptations to be helmed by Luchino Visconti and Frank Capra also didn’t happen.  Finally, Geiger came to Edward Dmytryk, whose film noirs established him as a director capable of handling the dark, tragic, socially-conscious material of Christ in Concrete.  The only problem was, this was 1948, and Dmytryk’s reputation as a Hollywood Ten now meant more than his reputation as the director of Crossfire, Cornered, and Murder My Sweet.

There’s a story that one day around this time, Billy Wilder and a colleague noticed a plume of black smoke billowing out of the RKO lot, and when the other man asked what was burning, Wilder quipped, “Poor Eddie Dmytryk’s career.”

Dmytryk, you see, had joined the Communist Party, but swiftly became disenchanted with it and by the time he was called before Congress to name names, Dmytryk felt he had nothing to hide.  He simply rankled at the question, and stood his ground on principle.  He was sentenced, for defending beliefs he didn’t even really believe.

Dmytryk saw Christ in Concrete as an escape route from this HUAC-imposed nightmare.  Producer Geiger had arranged co-financing with the J. Arthur Rank Organization and rented space at Denham Studios in England.  All that remained was to hightail it to England before the Feds came for him, and that meant getting a script around in short order.  Enter Ben Barzman, a friend of Dmytryk’s, a gifted screenwriter, and a leftist who knew his time before HUAC was certainly coming.  Barzman figured the move to England would be beneficial for him and his family.

And by family, I need to single out his wife Norma Barzman, who was the true screenwriting genius behind Christ in Concrete, despite the singular billing to her hubby.  I love the irony that Ben Barzman fled a system where writers had to hide behind fronts, only to thoughtlessly serve as a front for his own wife, whose writing career he tried to efface.  If you want to learn more about the Blacklist era, I can heartily recommend Norma’s glorious autobiographical account, The Red and the Black.  She rocks.

When Dmytryk asked Ben to write Christ in Concrete, the hitch was that he was already contracted to producer Dore Schary.  Ben initially shrugged off Dmytryk’s request, but it was Norma—who knew and loved di Donato’s book—who talked him into working for Schary during the day and writing Christ in Concrete at night.

The challenge to the two Barzmans was to find a way to shape di Donato’s dreamlike, episodic novel into a punchy narrative.  The book switches point of view across many characters, no single one of which is a clear protagonist.  The Barzmans elected to craft the film as a sort of prequel to the book, with the finale of the movie dramatizing the opening scenes of the novel.  To make the social critique more acute, the events were pushed forward about a decade from 1922 to the pitch of the Great Depression.

When Ben handed his first draft to Geiger and Dmytryk, they gushed with enthusiasm and asked for no changes.  Ben was flabbergasted.  Aside from a few trims mandated by the British censors, his script was filmed as written—a unique experience for the veteran writer.

But such triumphs were tempered with frustration, too.  He had uprooted his family to move to England, and burned bridges behind him such that he was unable to return.  The Barzmans would stay in Europe as ex-pats, on the lam from the Blacklist, for decades (far longer than the actual reach of the Blacklist).  And upon arrival in England, he found that Geiger didn’t have the money to pay him.  Geiger didn’t have the money to pay anyone.

In order to get the production funds from the bank, Geiger needed to first prove to the bank that he owned the material that was going to be filmed.  This meant he needed a letter from the Barzmans attesting they had been paid in full.  Which meant the only way the movie could be made was if the Barzmans surrendered the only leverage they had to be paid what they were owed.  He could stand up for himself, but then the project would die and everyone would have to pack up and go back home.

It was the same damned trap as HUAC: pass on the hurt to your friends, or martyr yourself to the cause.

True to his principles, Barzman signed the letter.  The movie was made, and he never received a single cent.

It must be noted, this dilemma is what drives the plot of the movie.  Geremio (played by Sam Wannamaker) is out of work and hard on his luck.  A job offer comes his way, but it’s dangerous work.  More importantly, the job offer is for him to be foreman, which means he won’t be risking his own life, he has to persuade his friends to go risk their lives.  He’ll have to lie to them, tell them the job is safe, or tell the bosses to take their sucky job and shove it—and watch his family starve.

He can either pass the hurt on to his friends, or destroy himself to save the others.  What would you do?

Geremio looks at his wife, and his seemingly numberless children, and knows he has no choice at all.  He takes the job, puts a happy face on it, and shoves his friends into harm’s way.  And for this act of selfishness, Geremio ends up crushed by rubble, buried in concrete.

And in another of the ironies of this tale, Dmytryk managed to not heed the message of his own film.

Dmytryk received a summons from the US State Department to come back to renew his passport.  Dmytryk had plenty of job offers in England and figured he could easily continue his career there, but he would need a valid passport to do so.  It was a risk going back to America, but he was reassured by the news that Dalton Trumbo and John Howard Lawson had appealed their convictions and the Supreme Court was expected to rule soon.  Expecting the Supreme Court to find in favor of the Ten, Dmytryk returned to the US to resolve the bureaucratic formality.  Trumbo and Lawson’s convictions were upheld, and Dmytryk found himself returning to arrest, trial, and jail.

Six months into his sentence, Dmytryk decided to name names.

Why he did so remains the subject of debate.  Some say it was just a cynical ploy to buy his way back into Hollywood (indeed, he immediately landed a multi-picture deal and was back to work in a giffy).  Some say he was pressured into it by his new wife who resented their mounting legal bills.  Dmytryk himself, in interviews at the time, said he simply no longer wanted to be a martyr to a cause he didn’t believe in.  He had defied Congress as a civil rights issue, not out of any love for Communism, and when the Supreme Court’s ruling made it clear the civil rights issue was a dead letter, he decided that the only thing he was achieving by staying mute was to protect the infrastructure of the Communist Party.  So he went before HUAC and named names, among them Norma and Ben Barzman.  Dmytryk was back in Hollywood’s good graces, and they would remain exiles.

Like Geremio’s death in concrete, there would be consequences for this betrayal.

Remember, the whole point of this exercise was to create a film to break the Blacklist.  The film was ostentatiously promoted as “Edward Dmytryk’s Christ in Concrete,” proudly declaiming its makers’ incendiary names.  The movie picked up top prizes across European film festivals, and some critics hailed it as a masterpiece, but it was being imported to the US precisely at the time that Dmytryk was making headlines for defying HUAC.  The very thing that had inspired the Blacklist in the first place—audience revolt, pickets, protests, boycotts—now happened.  The US distributor of Christ in Concrete, Eagle-Lion, tried to rename the film—Give Us This Day, or Salt to the Devil—but the damage was done.  It sank without a trace.  And without the American market, the producers back in England could not recoup production costs, no matter how many rave reviews and festival prizes they collected.  Geiger and his partners were ruined, their companies went bankrupt, and Christ in Concrete effectively vanished off the Earth.

In the post-Blacklist era of the 1960s and 70s, an opportunity for a revival of the film could theoretically have been countenanced.  In some alternate universe one can imagine college kids falling in love with this blunt, gritty critique of American capitalism, made in the heart of a conservative time.  But, you see, in the same way that late 1940s audiences objected to Dmytryk’s name as a Commie pariah and boycotted the film, 1960s and 70s audiences objected to Dmytryk’s name as a soulless sell-out and turncoat.  Christ in Concrete was maligned and abandoned by both the Left and the Right, thanks to Dmytryk’s role as a political lightning rod.

The rights to the film reverted to Pietro di Donato, thanks to a unique clause written into his contract by his wily agent Lucy Kroll.  The problem was, rights to a film aren’t the same thing as a film.  Geiger’s company, Plantaganet Films, filed for bankruptcy in the disastrous aftermath of the film’s distribution, and its assets were plundered by creditors.  But Kroll’s clause, giving ownership of the film to di Donato, meant that it wasn’t technically an asset of Plantaganet’s, and so nobody took over the caretaking of the film elements.  Eventually, in the 1960s, di Donato wanted to market the film to television, but found that although he owned it in name, he didn’t actually have a copy, and couldn’t find one.

He eventually found a copy on file at the Library of Congress and duplicated that for limited screenings in the 1970s; for the DVD restoration (which was screened on TCM) I helped master a restored presentation from archival 35mm nitrate sources stored at the British Film Institute.

But such “restoration” wouldn’t have been needed if the film hadn’t vanished in the first place.  Pietro di Donato wrote what is by all criteria a masterwork of American literature, nothing less than required reading.  Edward Dmytryk made from it what may be his greatest film.  It was a film that took a true story, one that happened in the 1920s and was dramatized in print in the 1930s, and made it into a relevant work for the 1940s, a parable of the Blacklist era.  A man was killed because his job was unsafe; filmmakers were driven into exile because their beliefs were considered unsafe.  Christ in Concrete dramatized these things both explicitly and metaphorically.  The Blacklist implied that the makers of this film were criminals, and that the film they made was antithetical to American interests.

Which returns us to the question: can a movie hurt you?

The movie certainly hurt itself.  For all it did right, there was that transgression to the moral order, which brought down a disproportionate punishment from an angry Old Testament God.  Dmytryk’s testimony betrayed his closest allies and orphaned his best work.  Geremio took a dirty job in a moment of desperation and consigned himself to a fate at the bottom of a pool of concrete.

0 Response Edward Dmytryk vs. the Blacklist
Posted By Margaret Perry Movies : June 16, 2012 2:38 pm

It’s really too bad that the Hollywood anti-HUAC contingent wasn’t able to save many people in the industry from ruin because of the blacklist.
http://thegreatkh.blogspot.com/2012/06/hepburn-and-anti-huac-brigade.html

Posted By Margaret Perry Movies : June 16, 2012 2:38 pm

It’s really too bad that the Hollywood anti-HUAC contingent wasn’t able to save many people in the industry from ruin because of the blacklist.
http://thegreatkh.blogspot.com/2012/06/hepburn-and-anti-huac-brigade.html

Posted By dukeroberts : June 17, 2012 2:16 am

People looking down on Dmytryk for naming names reminds me of the Oscars when Elia Kazan received his Lifetime Achievment Oscar and how many of the actors in the audience refused to applaud or stand or anything.

Posted By dukeroberts : June 17, 2012 2:16 am

People looking down on Dmytryk for naming names reminds me of the Oscars when Elia Kazan received his Lifetime Achievment Oscar and how many of the actors in the audience refused to applaud or stand or anything.

Posted By Peter Nellhaus : June 17, 2012 11:49 am

I had written about Christ in Concrete a few years back. Slowly working through Dmytryk’s available films on DVD. Even though the film failed, one can also see a connection with Eagle-Lion’s takeover of United Artists, with films that covertly challenged the blacklist (The Defiant Ones) and the release of Exodus with Dalton Trumbo as credited for the screenplay.

Posted By Peter Nellhaus : June 17, 2012 11:49 am

I had written about Christ in Concrete a few years back. Slowly working through Dmytryk’s available films on DVD. Even though the film failed, one can also see a connection with Eagle-Lion’s takeover of United Artists, with films that covertly challenged the blacklist (The Defiant Ones) and the release of Exodus with Dalton Trumbo as credited for the screenplay.

Posted By Tom S : June 17, 2012 10:07 pm

@Duke

Though I think you might have a different take on the whole thing, attacking Dmytryk and Kazan for naming names seems like the kind of thing that’s really easy to do when you were never in that position- it’s one thing for a genuine political refugee like Jules Dassin to do it, and another entirely for people who weren’t born or weren’t working yet when it was happening.

That doesn’t go for people who voluntarily and enthusiastically supported the board, though- I have no problem with thinking less of Ayn Rand, Walt Disney, and Adolphe Menjou over that whole thing.

Posted By Tom S : June 17, 2012 10:07 pm

@Duke

Though I think you might have a different take on the whole thing, attacking Dmytryk and Kazan for naming names seems like the kind of thing that’s really easy to do when you were never in that position- it’s one thing for a genuine political refugee like Jules Dassin to do it, and another entirely for people who weren’t born or weren’t working yet when it was happening.

That doesn’t go for people who voluntarily and enthusiastically supported the board, though- I have no problem with thinking less of Ayn Rand, Walt Disney, and Adolphe Menjou over that whole thing.

Posted By Susan Doll : June 17, 2012 10:19 pm

“Naming names” was a no-win situation. Everyone lost no matter what their decision was. The whole idea of HUAC would be absurd if it hadn’t been so harmful to America on so many levels.

Interesting story about CHRIST IN CONCRETE, though.

Posted By Susan Doll : June 17, 2012 10:19 pm

“Naming names” was a no-win situation. Everyone lost no matter what their decision was. The whole idea of HUAC would be absurd if it hadn’t been so harmful to America on so many levels.

Interesting story about CHRIST IN CONCRETE, though.

Posted By dukeroberts : June 18, 2012 1:04 am

I don’t think less of anyone on either side. Come back and ask me when we start to discuss Jane Fonda however, and you’ll get a totally different answer.

Posted By dukeroberts : June 18, 2012 1:04 am

I don’t think less of anyone on either side. Come back and ask me when we start to discuss Jane Fonda however, and you’ll get a totally different answer.

Posted By sailorbob : June 18, 2012 2:56 pm

Excellent post. One of the best I’ve read on this blog. What a sorry period in our country’s history.

Posted By sailorbob : June 18, 2012 2:56 pm

Excellent post. One of the best I’ve read on this blog. What a sorry period in our country’s history.

Posted By Juana Maria : June 18, 2012 5:58 pm

Sailorbob:Are you a real sailor? Yes,it is a well written blog. That’s why I read them here at tcm.com because the writers are not idiots such as can be found on other websites. This nation has had many sorrt periods in its history,slavery,trying to wipe out the Native Americans and the forced march known as the Trail of Tears,which brought my relatives to Oklamhoma,the segragation of the races,hating the Russians,hating people who are “differnt”,hating the Hippies,that always bugs me! Getting involved in Vietnam,I could go on,but I better not! It is just the Native American/Hippie in me! I’ve even dreamt that I was typing a protest against the Vietman War on my avacado green typewriter,when “the man” comes and takes me away! Duke Roberts better not say anything against Jane Fonda! She was brave! The HUAC is a reason why Charles Bronson changed his name from Buchinski,so people would think he was a Commie. Yes,I grew up hearing and using the word “commie”,didn’t you? Anyway,the whole HUAC situation is why movies such as “High Noon” and “Spartucus” are so important. Not only are they amazing films with the perfect cast of actors they were allegorical of the blacklist. It has been commented on about “High Noon” that is an allegory of HUAC’s Communist Witchhunts. Think about it. No one to side with the sheriff when he is being attacked, is the same thing that was going on when HUAC was pointing fingers saying:”You’re a Communist!”and no one wanting to stand up and defend each other.

Posted By Juana Maria : June 18, 2012 5:58 pm

Sailorbob:Are you a real sailor? Yes,it is a well written blog. That’s why I read them here at tcm.com because the writers are not idiots such as can be found on other websites. This nation has had many sorrt periods in its history,slavery,trying to wipe out the Native Americans and the forced march known as the Trail of Tears,which brought my relatives to Oklamhoma,the segragation of the races,hating the Russians,hating people who are “differnt”,hating the Hippies,that always bugs me! Getting involved in Vietnam,I could go on,but I better not! It is just the Native American/Hippie in me! I’ve even dreamt that I was typing a protest against the Vietman War on my avacado green typewriter,when “the man” comes and takes me away! Duke Roberts better not say anything against Jane Fonda! She was brave! The HUAC is a reason why Charles Bronson changed his name from Buchinski,so people would think he was a Commie. Yes,I grew up hearing and using the word “commie”,didn’t you? Anyway,the whole HUAC situation is why movies such as “High Noon” and “Spartucus” are so important. Not only are they amazing films with the perfect cast of actors they were allegorical of the blacklist. It has been commented on about “High Noon” that is an allegory of HUAC’s Communist Witchhunts. Think about it. No one to side with the sheriff when he is being attacked, is the same thing that was going on when HUAC was pointing fingers saying:”You’re a Communist!”and no one wanting to stand up and defend each other.

Posted By Isadore Yankavitch : June 19, 2012 6:09 pm

Although spending significant amounts of time on the political leanings of Hollywood types was never a very productive activity, I do not really get people who say this was such a terrible period in our history. First, anyone who was an active member of the Communist Party in the 1930s or 1940s essentially was taking orders from Joseph Stalin. Such individuals were thus very differnt from the flakey Hollywood types of today who think Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro are the bee’s knees. Second, the United States had a serious communist problem in the 1940s, as is evidenced by what happened in eastern Europe after WWII and how close Alger Hiss was to President Rosevelt during the negotiations on Europe’s future. Third, the big reason some did not talk was that they were loyal communists. When Paul Robeson went to Moscow and found out many of his Jewish friends had been killed or imprisoned, he refused to denounce Stalin. Fourth, there is a huge degree of hypocracy amoung the anti-anticomunists. HUAC was started during WWII to look at American Nazis and Nazi propogandists. Many lives were destroyed in the investigations of the German American Bund, but no one complains about that becuase, I guess, the Bund did not spend enough time saying that they were doing it “for the people” because “they care.” I saw a documentary on PBS that showed Paul Robeson in Warsaw dedicating “Old Man River” to the communist revolutionaries in China. Of course, at least 30 million people died during the next 20 years, but Robeson’s heart was in the right place. On the old televison show Lou Grant, there was an episode where where it was discovered that someone at the newspaper had named names (around 25 years before). At the end of the episode, that person was fired, teaching the lesson that it’s ok to blacklist someone who denounces communists but its wrong to blacklist those who refuse to denounce communists.

Posted By Isadore Yankavitch : June 19, 2012 6:09 pm

Although spending significant amounts of time on the political leanings of Hollywood types was never a very productive activity, I do not really get people who say this was such a terrible period in our history. First, anyone who was an active member of the Communist Party in the 1930s or 1940s essentially was taking orders from Joseph Stalin. Such individuals were thus very differnt from the flakey Hollywood types of today who think Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro are the bee’s knees. Second, the United States had a serious communist problem in the 1940s, as is evidenced by what happened in eastern Europe after WWII and how close Alger Hiss was to President Rosevelt during the negotiations on Europe’s future. Third, the big reason some did not talk was that they were loyal communists. When Paul Robeson went to Moscow and found out many of his Jewish friends had been killed or imprisoned, he refused to denounce Stalin. Fourth, there is a huge degree of hypocracy amoung the anti-anticomunists. HUAC was started during WWII to look at American Nazis and Nazi propogandists. Many lives were destroyed in the investigations of the German American Bund, but no one complains about that becuase, I guess, the Bund did not spend enough time saying that they were doing it “for the people” because “they care.” I saw a documentary on PBS that showed Paul Robeson in Warsaw dedicating “Old Man River” to the communist revolutionaries in China. Of course, at least 30 million people died during the next 20 years, but Robeson’s heart was in the right place. On the old televison show Lou Grant, there was an episode where where it was discovered that someone at the newspaper had named names (around 25 years before). At the end of the episode, that person was fired, teaching the lesson that it’s ok to blacklist someone who denounces communists but its wrong to blacklist those who refuse to denounce communists.

Posted By dukeroberts : June 21, 2012 12:35 am

Juana- Jane Fonda was the exact opposite of brave. We will just have to disagree on that.

Posted By dukeroberts : June 21, 2012 12:35 am

Juana- Jane Fonda was the exact opposite of brave. We will just have to disagree on that.

Posted By Tom S : June 21, 2012 1:44 am

Yeah, what could be more cowardly than speaking out against shitty things your country is doing during wartime?

Posted By Tom S : June 21, 2012 1:44 am

Yeah, what could be more cowardly than speaking out against shitty things your country is doing during wartime?

Posted By dukeroberts : June 21, 2012 9:20 am

I don’t think there’s anything cowardly or brave about speaking out against war. Lots of people do it. It is what it is. What Jane Fonda did during the war went way beyond just speaking out about what her country was doing.

Posted By dukeroberts : June 21, 2012 9:20 am

I don’t think there’s anything cowardly or brave about speaking out against war. Lots of people do it. It is what it is. What Jane Fonda did during the war went way beyond just speaking out about what her country was doing.

Posted By Juana Maria : June 21, 2012 3:55 pm

Duke Roberts: I can’t agree on everything you say. We still have freedom of speech in this country for now. I’m getting the feeling you were never a Hippie and don’t see things the way we do! Besides,I’m also part Native American,and it upsets me greatly what has happened between the Native peoples and the whites. There is nothing cowardly about standing up for what you believe in, it takes guts. I don’t know everything Jane Fonda said or did during the Vietnam War. So I don’t know why you are so upset. Please,explain a little clearer for me and I might feel the same way you do! I need reasons first. Thanks Duke, I hope I’m still your friend. Tu amiga,Juana Maria

Posted By Juana Maria : June 21, 2012 3:55 pm

Duke Roberts: I can’t agree on everything you say. We still have freedom of speech in this country for now. I’m getting the feeling you were never a Hippie and don’t see things the way we do! Besides,I’m also part Native American,and it upsets me greatly what has happened between the Native peoples and the whites. There is nothing cowardly about standing up for what you believe in, it takes guts. I don’t know everything Jane Fonda said or did during the Vietnam War. So I don’t know why you are so upset. Please,explain a little clearer for me and I might feel the same way you do! I need reasons first. Thanks Duke, I hope I’m still your friend. Tu amiga,Juana Maria

Posted By Jenni : June 23, 2012 10:24 pm

I think what Duke is trying to point out is that Jane Fonda went across into enemy lines and posed for pictures with the Vietcong. I remember vaguely seeing pics of this, she posed with weapons they were using against American soldiers, too, and wore a Vietcong helmet. It would be akin to Lauren Bacall crossing into Germany, posing for pics with Nazi soldiers and their weapons. I was only a small child during Vietnam, but have heard enough of my elders talk about what she did. I asked my father in law if her father, Henry Fonda, said anything about it, and he seemed to recall that HF did strongly disagree with what his daughter had done. To quote a former Naval Officer I once knew,”I ain’t too Fonda Hanoi Jane.” I also think about 5 years ago she was asked about it in an interview, and she regretted posing for those pictures, as she didn’t realize how it hurt the US soldiers, or how the Vietcong would display them for all to see.

Posted By Jenni : June 23, 2012 10:24 pm

I think what Duke is trying to point out is that Jane Fonda went across into enemy lines and posed for pictures with the Vietcong. I remember vaguely seeing pics of this, she posed with weapons they were using against American soldiers, too, and wore a Vietcong helmet. It would be akin to Lauren Bacall crossing into Germany, posing for pics with Nazi soldiers and their weapons. I was only a small child during Vietnam, but have heard enough of my elders talk about what she did. I asked my father in law if her father, Henry Fonda, said anything about it, and he seemed to recall that HF did strongly disagree with what his daughter had done. To quote a former Naval Officer I once knew,”I ain’t too Fonda Hanoi Jane.” I also think about 5 years ago she was asked about it in an interview, and she regretted posing for those pictures, as she didn’t realize how it hurt the US soldiers, or how the Vietcong would display them for all to see.

Posted By Juana Maria : June 25, 2012 4:05 pm

I had no idea about Jane Fonda and the Vietcong,and her posing for any pictures with them! Shocking. I thought she was just a Hippie anti-War protester.I wonder if they brain washed her like the enemy did in “The Manchurian Canidate”? That movie seems more fact than fiction to me! I don’t know maybe she was high? Did she do drugs like most young people did then? There was a ton of drugs to be had in Vietnam,even the military guys were high! I know some of them personally. Yeah,I am girl who watches “Dirty Dozen” and “Platoon” but is a Hippie and anti-War. I have Hippie friends and military friends,some are relatives too. From reading what you wrote Jane Fonda should thought about what she was doing better than she did.

Posted By Juana Maria : June 25, 2012 4:05 pm

I had no idea about Jane Fonda and the Vietcong,and her posing for any pictures with them! Shocking. I thought she was just a Hippie anti-War protester.I wonder if they brain washed her like the enemy did in “The Manchurian Canidate”? That movie seems more fact than fiction to me! I don’t know maybe she was high? Did she do drugs like most young people did then? There was a ton of drugs to be had in Vietnam,even the military guys were high! I know some of them personally. Yeah,I am girl who watches “Dirty Dozen” and “Platoon” but is a Hippie and anti-War. I have Hippie friends and military friends,some are relatives too. From reading what you wrote Jane Fonda should thought about what she was doing better than she did.

Posted By ThomasA.Foster : June 28, 2012 3:28 pm

Isadore Yankavitch:
Supporting Communism in the 1930s and 1940s was indeed different than outright support of an enemy power. It grew from a society in which workers had no rights. Also, the Soviet Union under Stalin was our ally during WWII, even if an ally of convenience. You make some good points in your post, however HUAC devolved into grandstanding and scapegoating. I never heard of HUAC bothering to target any specific films, though they certainly could have: much of film noir is inherently anti-capitalist, imho. There’s a big difference between someone who visits a communist country, and someone who goes to meetings which were essentially an earlier version of today’s Occupy movement, or union organizing, etc.

Posted By ThomasA.Foster : June 28, 2012 3:28 pm

Isadore Yankavitch:
Supporting Communism in the 1930s and 1940s was indeed different than outright support of an enemy power. It grew from a society in which workers had no rights. Also, the Soviet Union under Stalin was our ally during WWII, even if an ally of convenience. You make some good points in your post, however HUAC devolved into grandstanding and scapegoating. I never heard of HUAC bothering to target any specific films, though they certainly could have: much of film noir is inherently anti-capitalist, imho. There’s a big difference between someone who visits a communist country, and someone who goes to meetings which were essentially an earlier version of today’s Occupy movement, or union organizing, etc.

Posted By Isadore Yankavitch : July 6, 2012 7:15 pm

To ThomasA.Foster: Well, Hitler gave Germany full employment and was very popular for a time. The point I made was about active communists. The only real defense that such people had for their conduct in the 1930s and 1940s was gross stupidity. Most union members at the time were patriots and the communists were actively kicked out of most American unions after WWII only to be allowed back in the late 1990s. As for the Occupy movement, have you followed the rapes, property destruction, drug dealing, acts of terrorism (shooting at the White House, trying to blow up a bridge), defense of sex trafficking (including of children), rat infestations, anti-semitic ravings, etc. to come out of that?

Posted By Isadore Yankavitch : July 6, 2012 7:15 pm

To ThomasA.Foster: Well, Hitler gave Germany full employment and was very popular for a time. The point I made was about active communists. The only real defense that such people had for their conduct in the 1930s and 1940s was gross stupidity. Most union members at the time were patriots and the communists were actively kicked out of most American unions after WWII only to be allowed back in the late 1990s. As for the Occupy movement, have you followed the rapes, property destruction, drug dealing, acts of terrorism (shooting at the White House, trying to blow up a bridge), defense of sex trafficking (including of children), rat infestations, anti-semitic ravings, etc. to come out of that?

Leave a Reply

Current ye@r *

MovieMorlocks.com is the official blog for TCM. No topic is too obscure or niche to be excluded from our film discussions. And we welcome your comments on our blogs and bloggers.
See more: facebook.com/tcmtv
See more: twitter.com/tcm
3-D  Action Films  Actors  Actors' Endorsements  Actresses  animal stars  Animation  Anime  Anthology Films  Art in Movies  Australian CInema  Autobiography  Avant-Garde  Aviation  Awards  B-movies  Beer in Film  Behind the Scenes  Best of the Year lists  Biography  Biopics  Black Film  Blu-Ray  Books on Film  Boxing films  British Cinema  Canadian Cinema  Character Actors  Chicago Film History  Cinematography  Classic Films  College Life on Film  Comedy  Comic Book Movies  Crime  Czech Film  Dance on Film  Digital Cinema  Directors  Disaster Films  Documentary  Drama  DVD  Early Talkies  Editing  Educational Films  European Influence on American Cinema  Experimental  Exploitation  Fairy Tales on Film  Faith or Christian-based Films  Family Films  Film Composers  Film Criticism  film festivals  Film History in Florida  Film Noir  Film Scholars  Film titles  Filmmaking Techniques  Films About Gambling  Films of the 1960s  Films of the 1980s  Food in Film  Foreign Film  French Film  Gangster films  Genre  Genre spoofs  HD & Blu-Ray  Holiday Movies  Hollywood history  Hollywood lifestyles  Horror  Horror Movies  Icons  independent film  Italian Film  Japanese Film  Korean Film  Literary Adaptations  Martial Arts  Melodramas  Method Acting  Mexican Cinema  Moguls  Monster Movies  Movie Books  Movie Costumes  movie flops  Movie locations  Movie lovers  Movie Reviewers  Movie settings  Movie Stars  Movie titles  Movies about movies  Music in Film  Musicals  Outdoor Cinema  Paranoid Thrillers  Parenting on film  Pirate movies  Polish film industry  political thrillers  Politics in Film  Pornography  Pre-Code  Producers  Race in American Film  Remakes  Revenge  Road Movies  Romance  Romantic Comedies  Satire  Scandals  Science Fiction  Screenwriters  Semi-documentaries  Serials  Short Films  Silent Film  silent films  Social Problem Film  Sports  Sports on Film  Stereotypes  Straight-to-DVD  Studio Politics  Stunts and stuntmen  Suspense thriller  Swashbucklers  TCM Classic Film Festival  TCM Underground  Television  The British in Hollywood  The Germans in Hollywood  The Hungarians in Hollywood  The Irish in Hollywood  Theaters  Thriller  Trains in movies  Underground Cinema  VOD  War film  Westerns  Women in the Film Industry  Women's Weepies