Click to Listen to the Show (24 MB MP3)
A Hollywood icon peers down on Connecticut Ave. in Washingon, DC. [Shreyas / Flickr]
Al Gore may have made history by standing on stage to accept his Oscar last night, but he wasn’t the first politician to dip his toes into Hollywood. And it wasn’t the first time members of the Academy paid tribute to Washington.
Watching Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio bask in each other’s reflected glow, we here in our own green room started thinking about a list of other connections between Hollywood and Washington: Hollywood’s original ambassador Ronald Reagan and his political stepson Arnold Schwarzenegger; the blacklisting of writers and actors during the McCarthy era; Barbra Streisand in the Lincoln Bedroom; JFK and Marilyn; Jane Fonda posing on an anti-aircraft gun with the Vietcong.
Tonight we’re asking what exactly does Hollywood mean to America’s political imagination? Why does the specter of liberal Hollywood haunt our political discourse? Why do we assume, culturally, that Hollywood is the domain of the left, even when it’s given us some of our most memorable conservative politicians? Where does the Beltway meet the freeway?
David Thompson
Ted Johnson
-
Managing Editor, Variety
Blogger, Wilshire & Washington
Sidney Blumenthal
-
Former advisor to President Bill Clinton
Regular columnist, Salon
Paul Buhle
-
Lecturer, American Civilization Department, Brown University
Author, Radical Hollywood: The Untold Story Behind America’s Favorite Movies
Roger L. Simon
-
Nominated with Paul Mazursky in 1989 for an Academy Award for Best Adapted Screenplay for “Enemies, a Love Story”
CEO, Pajamas Media
Blogger, roger l. simon
- Extra Credit Reading
-
Celebs Step Up, Politics Slaps ‘Em Down, ABC News, October 29, 2006: “For years, Hollywood has given a hand to Democrats. Humphrey Bogart stumped for FDR, Harry Belafonte for JFK, and Warren Beatty for George McGovern.”
Bill O’Reilly, Whoopi Goldberg on Holywood Politics, The O’Reilly Factor, February 2, 2007: “O’REILLY: But don’t you feel it’s his responsibility if he or Jane Fonda and the rest and you too are going to take strong policy stands, because people do listen to you… that you know what the heck you’re talking about?
GOLDBERG: When I take a stance on something, all I can talk to you about it how I feel about it and why. And I don’t have to justify it, and you don’t have to listen to it. But it is important for everyone to know that they have an opinion and they have a — have a right to express it.
O’REILLY: But your opinion is a little bit more heard than somebody — than Sally in Charlotte, North Carolina.
GOLDBERG: No different than yours.”
RJ Eskow, Horray for Hollywood!, The Huffington Post, February 21, 2006: “The Republicans certainly didn’t object to “Hollywood celebrities” when they ran Ronald Reagan for Governor and George Murphy for Senator.”
Michael R. Blood, Obama Attracts Celebrities and Cash, Newsvine, February 20, 2007: “The fundraiser underscored the intense competition among the party’s leading 2008 candidates for Hollywood dollars and endorsements.”
David Knowles, Hollywood Squares — Iraq Edition, The Stump, January 29, 2007: “What do actors have to do with politics? Nothing, of course, unless you’re Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jesse Ventura, Clint Eastwood, Al Franken, Michael J. Fox, Charlton Heston, etc., etc. But flip the question and it’s even easier to understand the connection. What does politics have to do with acting? Plenty.”
Arianna Huffington, 2008: Will Al Gore Be the Anti-Hillary?, The Huffington Post, October 12, 2005: “Lawrence Bender, who after producing ‘Kill Bill’ is now producing what I hear is a killer documentary featuring Gore and his fight to get our country to take action on global warming, told me that the former VP ‘would be a hell of a candidate.’”
kos, Gore, Daily Kos, February 1, 2006: “Say Gore scores an Oscar and Nobel in the same year, he can announce in November and still become THE story in the primaries. It’s not as if he’ll need the full year to get his name recognition up or make the case for his candidacy. He would instantly raise gobs of cash (I’d bet on tens of millions in the first 24 hours) and become the media sensation of the winter. He would instantly make hundreds of millions spent by his primary opponents obsolete. Talent would flock to him, decimating the staffs of his opponents.”
11:15
Hollywood is not doing what Hollywood used to do. They know it, and they’re desperately worried. They feel like everyone in the media, that there are so many ways in which their power could be eclipsed, their market taken away. I don’t think Hollywood’s got anything like the confidence, or the identity and security, that you’re offering to it.
David Thomson
16:55
Hollywood really does want a star candidate, and they really do look for that kind of charisma. I can’t help but think back to 2004, when you had this field of contenders: you had some excitement behind Howard Dean, but you also had a lot of donors out there saying, God, I really wish that Hillary Clinton would enter the race. Thinking back, she was kind of the dream candidate that they wished would enter the race that year. Obviously things have changed quite a bit since then. But I really do think that they look for that star quality.
Ted Johnson
22:20
The other problem with [Clint] Eastwood is he’s too successful. The people who enter politics from Hollwood are people who have sort of reached a dead end one way or another in their careers, or are on the downslide… You know, if you’re looking for a future political figure out of California, out of Hollwood, we need to look at the failing stars.
Sidney Blumenthal
28:05
It’s been quite a while… since on general election day, California has been an important scene of the action. People in California are used to the fact that we don’t get very many campaign ads on TV now, because California is a lock, in terms of the general election vote. It isn’t an action state, is it?
David Thomson
40:25
It’s very amusing to me to hear Roger Simon echo these old 1940s charges, at the time of the Cold War, that Hollywood writers who are successful, and also were left-wing, were swimming pool communists, as they were called. Because they had houses, they had swimming pools, and what right did they have to script left-wing films.
Paul Buhle
43:35
In the past, one of the great curiousities of interviewing survivors of the blacklist, which I pretty systematically did before they died, was that they became supporters of the Popular Front because they believed that only a very different America would admit Jews on an equal basis. That may or may not have been true; from their view in the thirties and forties, it certainly seemed like it; from the Joe McCarthy view of the fifties it certainly seemed like it.
Paul Buhle
As to the first question I submit the news that Angelina Jolie has been nominated to become a member of the think tank “The Council on Foreign Relations” ( publisher of the very worthwhile “Foreign Affairs” magazine).
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20013351,00.html
If she calls attention to some issues that need it while people are paying her so much attention, I don’t mind at all…it’s good. Hollywood folks, it seems to me, need to live for other than themselves and it also seems to me that AJ knows how to save herself.
///…Angelina Jolie has been nominated to become a member of the think tank…\\
I would like to think-off with her.
(Can I say ‘think-off’ on this site?)
The celebrity as political platform is a real mixed bag. Angelina Jolie has managed to build a career at the UN without proclaiming it. (The cameras are always looking for her, but she hasn’t asked them to follow her UN work.) It seems like she is really focused on the work and if the cameras follow her and that helps the cause then fine. But, the problem is that all these celebrities already lead such a privileged life that even in their social service work they do it in a privileged way. And would they do the work if it didn’t get them some good PR?
The announcement of the ‘green’ Oscar was very weird. I mean, how many of them arrived in private SUVs? How many were wearing clothes that didn’t cost my entire year’s income? Were their clothes/shoes made without any environmental damage? These people all lead extravagant lives – multiple homes, private jets, etc. It doesn’t feel genuine for them to be talking about environmental responsibility. The first step is reduction in consumerism. When they ratchet down their consumption to less than the ordinary individual then they can talk to me about saving the planet.
I, too, think it’s strange that Hollywood is considered liberal. Reagan, Schwarzenegger, Eastwood…. Please name liberal politicians that came from an entertainment background. I think it’s possible that the more right-wing, fundamentalist entertainers do their lobbying behind the scenes because the majority of the public doesn’t like the polarization of religion driven politics. Publicly, we express a core value in the separation of church and state, but privately people in churches want the state to cater to their agenda. It’s much better general PR to save the baby seals than it is to seek a stronger death penalty.
rotflmao !
Guy is talking about Gore’s girth !
Hollywood is dreamy, nightmarish, and an enormous industry and has deep pockets in DC. For the relatively few successful and vocal ‘liberal’ wildcats, there are more conservative, pragmatic relationships between LaLaLand and DC than the sum of all Fondaness. Despite the supposed outrage and hangover from the Blacklist era, I think much of Hollywood is still actually upset it didn’t get rid of all the leftist ‘commies’ back in 47 starting with the Waldorf Statement. Though they were probably more successful in steering the future of American political conversation than they could have hoped for back then.
Homer/Cartman ’08
Sharon Stone/Borat ’08
Who are these guests? calling from their cells phones with short almost glib answers…personifying typical Hollywood persona…
The Sun King had better taste than most west coast celebs…
And speaking of the swimming pool commies, I believe Mort Sahl said something along the lines of: “Liberals feel unworthy of their possessions. Conservatives feel they deserve everything they’ve stolen.
Apparently, glib is the new earnest in these parts. Tell me, after Mr. Thompson seriously suggested that Gore’ weight spoke to his competence — not his likelihood of running, but his ability to govern — and wasn’t called out on it, was I supposed to take the rest of the show seriously? Because I sure didn’t.
Al Gore’s example shows that media can be more powerful than our politicians. His movie did more to sway Americans about global warming that eight years as vice president. Politicians operate under many more constraints than the media, so our elected leaders are reluctant to shake things up – they might lose a few apples off the cart.
The media(um) is the message
“the blacklisting of writers and actors during the McCarthy era; Barbra Streisand in the Lincoln Bedroom; JFK and Marilyn; Jane Fonda posing on an anti-aircraft gun with the Vietcong”.
add to this list the Dixie Chicks. There is a cut in their new video Shut Up and Sing where John McCain is grilling the Radio Executive responsible for the top down blacklisting of their songs from country radio stations. They seem pretty well vindicated now by the industry. It was great to see Joan Baez introduce the Dixie Chicks when they won their recent grammy.
There was an uneasy collusion between leftist Hollywood screenwriters and the studio moguls of the thrities, forties, and even fifties. These moguls both believed in, aspired to, and spun out a certain idea of America, of which “the common man” was a chief component. The leftist screenwriters believed in the ‘common man’ as a political ideal as well as a cultural one. Both loved movies and werer fascinated by its potential. From a combination of the means of the studio system and the talent of the screenwriters came this wonderful amlagam of an American mythology. The stars were the icons of this cinematic myth making.
These are the movies I grew up loving, Gone With the Wind, The Wizard of OZ, The African Queen, The Searchers, the films noir, the westerns, the bio-pics and so on. The sixites and seventies seem to have exploded this myth making, but in its idealism and rebels with and without a cause it only perpetuated and expanded on the core of this Hollywood myth making.
In the 1980′s with the ascent to power of the super agents, dealmakers and killer producers, this Hollywood American myth vanished in the sheer brutality of the system where “the deal was the thing,” and not the film. Predictedly, the comman man hero became a cerrtain kind of psychopathic protagonist with no or little soul so prevalent in the 1980′s action flicks.
Let’s hope that the ascendency of the indepenedent film will bring back the soul to films and we will find our new common man and woman and the American myth that will thrill us and capture our imagination instead of just our greenbacks.
Rollo May, Alfred Kinsey, civil rights – many stereotypes have been blown away…
Hollywood has always leaned left. Heck it was infiltrated by the communists as far back as 1935.
Russia used the Communist Party of the USA to start the process of turning Hollywood into a valubale arm in it’s attempt to overthrow the USA.
The unfortunate thing is how so many free and incredibly successfull Americans fell under the influence of the Brutal dictatorship of Russia.
To be fair there were many liberal Hollywood types who did not favor the Communist influence on Hollywood, and many actual members of the communist party were really just members for social reasons. Apparently it was a ”Cool” thing to be a Communist in Hollywood circles back in the 40′s and 50′s. One member stated it was a great way to pick up women.
Even today Hollywood and the left try and under-state the subversive nature of many of Hollywoods elite for the role they played in attempting to help Russia in its plans to overthrow America.
It is of no suprise that todays Hollywood leans heavily to the left. They are just following in their predecesors foot steps.
Thank God for heroes like Elia Kazan. A man who stood up and defended his country against those who would do it harm.
“I don’t think that all of this is productive”,said Warren Beatty, reached on his cellphone. “I think the media is looking for a big political story, and I think it is much more important to talk about the issues. ………..
……………No one is expecting Mr. Geffen to spend his days golfing, but there is a danger that if the coming election becomes his full-time hobby, his precision ruthlessness will distort the public process. After all, this is not a movie sale, a busted deal or a Don Henley album; this is about the duly elected leader of the United States.
Mr. Geffen and Ron Burkle, another Los Angeles billionaire who is a staunch ally of the Clintons, have already fought for custody of The Los Angeles Times. No one wants to see the presidency treated as a cat toy between rich men who don’t like to lose.
Someone Give Geffen a Day Job” by David Carr
Jack Valenti needs to be mentioned. He was LBJ’s press guy and close White House adviser. (incidentally, in repayment for his loyalty LBJ treated him despicably)The MPGAA rating of G, R, X, etc., was his.
He was the most influential lobbyist for the eternal copyright interest group.
Gore Vidal, who is some sort of cousin of Al Gore, wrote Hollywood, which is about Washington in the days of World War One.
Elia Kazan did not “stand up to defend his country against those who would do it harm.” He gave into the pressure of the House Committee to of Unamerican Activites led by Senator Joe McCarthy to name the names of those he knew or presumed were communists. I do not remmeber if Kazan was a communist at one point himself or just a sympathizer. Many others went to jail instead of naming names because they felt that their fundamental rights as Americans were being violated by the rampaging senator and his committee. Ironically this was they kind of state coercion and authoritarianism that it is now the cool thing to decry. But while we were on the right side of history in the cold war, senator McCarthy ran amock in what was then the red scare similar to the terrosrist scare that the Bush administration uses to get its way. McCarthy even went after the US army and general Geroge Marshall as being fellow red travelers. It was finally the moderate and right wing that brought him down (Eisenhoer loathed him) in the same way that the republican party is now distancing itself and repudiating Bush, Jr. and his clique.
There were not many in Hollywood who wanted to overthrow America in favor of the Soviet Union. But there were many who wanted to improve the life of their fellow Americans from a place of idealism, America opening up the American dream to everyone. I do think that the left should have repudiated the Soviet Union and Stalin earlier, in the same way we should today stand up against any abuse of our rights here in the United States by the governement, or the misuse of American poewr overseas. It’s alway easier to point one’s finger at the wrongs of the past than to stand up for what one thinks is right, and take the consequences, in the present.
You know I just saw a picture called “The Santa Fe Trail.” It’s one of thjose three stars out of four westerns that Hollywood used to make that nevertheless dwarf any historical miniseries and most historical films today in terms of story-telling and craft. The 1940 pic about a young George Custer and Jeb Stuart and a marauding John Brown, starring Ronald Regan and Erol Flynn in roles where they actually acted, and a luminous Olivia de Haviland, directed by Michael Curtiz (of Casablanca fame). This thrilling Hollywood “histo-tainment” has a serious and sophisticated theme of doing evil in the name of good, murdering and terrorizing in the name of abolition on ther part of John Brown.
The writer, Robert Buckner, who I think was left-leaning, had both the talent and life wisdom to demonstrate in this entertainment, the danger of any sort of fundamentalism, be it political or religious (Brown had both). He showed the folly and tragedy of murdering for one’s ideals. This is what Stalin had been doing for over ten years in the Soviet Union. He also forshadowed the tragedy of our own Civil War.
Far from being the obedient and ideologically blinded communist fellow traveler, that stereotype rc21 threw out, Buckner intelligently criticized the roots of the state massacres in the Soviet Union in the same way that Casablanca was a classic call to stand up against fascism a few years later.
To resume the point I made in my last post, I think that the very talented and humanistic left of Hollywood in its golden age actually brought out what is best and most decent in America: opportunity for all to the American dream, the democratic spirit of the people, the common man who will stand up for justice and the rule of law in a corrupt society when pushed to act.
If only we can carry on that spirit today, to have the strength and moral core to stand up for what is decent and right in the face of fanaticism, fundamentalism, and to speak truth to the rich and powerful who would lead us astray for their own interests or crazy, misguided ideas that run against the American grain.
To David Weinstein;
Kazan was in fact a hero. He exposed members of the communist party. Let me remind you the communist party in America took it’s orders from Russia. They were commited to overthrowing America.
Kazan was defending freedom. The Hollywood communists were trying to destroy the rights and freedom of the American citizen.
The HUAC had every right to investigate these people. The Govt has the right to investigate any organization that declares its active intent to overthrow a free society on behalf of a foreign dictatorship– It was not the ideas that were the inquirys target but their activities-or their threatened activities.
McCarthy was not the man to head these investigations. He overstepped his bounds. I also think he became power hungry and went off the rails. But don’t let his short-comings and misguided tactics take away from the truth.
Reread my post I stated not all in Hollywood were died in the wool Communists bent on overthrowing the USA. I actually said many were just in for the ”coolness” of it. Many Liberals helped stop the Commies from overtaking the unions that involved Hollywood types.
The problem is far to many were sympathetic to the hard core communists and assisted them or did not speak up when they knew that there was active involvment between the Hollywood commies and Moscow.
Kazans movie “On The Water Front” Is his metaphor for his dealings with the Communist party ( You are right Kazan was a Communist at one time) He saw the light and fought the evil. Something far to many liberals seem able to do.
You and others seem to have this romantic distortion of Communism in America during the cold war. It’s a myth that is still perpetuated by todays left leaning hollywood types.
This is from Kazan on his dealings with the communists; ” They ( the Communist party) attempted to control thought and supress personal opinion. They tried to dictate personal conduct. They habitually distorted,disregarded and violated the truth.”
I was also held back by a piece of specious reasoning which has silenced many liberals. It goes like this; You may hate the communists, but you must not attack,or expose them, because if you do you are attacking the right to hold unpopular opinions, and you are joining the people who attck civil liberties.
We must never let the communists get away with the pretense that they stand for the very things which they kill in their own countries. I am talking about free speech, free press, the rights of property–and above all individual rights.
Yes Kazan is a hero, if only for exposing the ugly truth that so many on the left still deny.
RC and DW, I’m interested in the empirical debate here regarding whether there were many Hollywood folks who were working to subvert or overthrow the government (there’s a big difference between having leftist sympathies — even Communist sympathies — and supporting subversion). Do either of you have any citations for that issue?
Thanks!
Sutter, Good question. No real easy answer. This is my take from the reading and research I have done. The CPUSA ( Communist Party of the United States of America) Began its infiltration of Hollywood around 1935.
It hoped to infiltrate and take over the Hollywood trade unions and guilds. Herb Sorell a labor leader and party member was sent to Hollywood to organize. He was under the handiling of one Harry Bridges Leader of San Franciscos Longshorman and warehousmans union. He was also an agent for the Soviet Union.
These men and others recruited many into the party and helped carry out Russias directives. Many movie producers made films that were sympathetic to the communist way of life. And if they could not do this they were instructed to not make movies that showed Russia and it’s communist ways in a bad light. Can you think of many movies that show Russias use of Gulags Mass executions Imprisonment of political dissenters made during the 40′s and 50′s? Nothing on the Hungarian uprising, the Progroms , The ethnic cleansing by Stalin, the forced starvation of millions. Kind of makes you wonder doesnt it?
Lennin believed that film was the most important form of art . This is one of the reasons Russia was so keen to get its people in to Hollywood If they succeeded then the propaganda machine could work from within the USA.
Revisionist liberal historians tried to down play the CPUSA and their influence, they also said that the CPUSA was a grass roots organization formed by Americans who merly wanted a more socialistic form of govt in the USA and had only good intentions in mind. They were really a group who cared for the poor and disenfranchised.
This view held sway until the fall of the Russian empire. With the release of Russian documents and our own release of the Venona papers it became clear that CPUSA was under the total control of Russia and was involved in many illegal activities including espionage. CPUSA was full of russian spies. It was worse than the original historians had even thought, and the liberal revisionists story was blown totally out of the water.
Now it must be understood that not all members of the CPUSA were traitors and spies. As i stated prviously many really did not have a clue at how subversive the outfit was. they just thought it was the in thing to do. It must also be acknowledged that many liberals were not even in the CPUSA and fought the take over of the Unions. So we must differentiate between the Two groups.
There was also a group somewhere in the middle they were not actively trying to overthrow the govt nor were they spying or breaking the law. But many knew what was going on. They knew that there was an active group who were trying there best to subvert the country and they remained silent.
This subject is further muddied by Sen McCarthys idiotic behaviour. He clearly over-stepped his bounds and went way to far in his accusations. He was a bad man and he did bad things. By doing so he was with the help of a liberal media and Hollywood make the people brought before the HUAC look like they were being persecuted for no real reason.
Anyways thats a very short version of things. I wonder if we will ever see a movie that depicts the events the way they really happened. I’m afraid Hollywood and the medias strange love affair with communism and the Soviet Union will prevent such a thing.
rc21: You seem to have done some homework on this issue. But it is clear that you have not worked in Hollywood, have not met the people who worked there during the time or afterwards. I think you are dreaming or brainwashed when you write of “Hollywood and the medias strange love affair with communism and the Soviet union…” This is the kind of thing that the Bush/talk-radio right has been putting out wiht terms such as “Hollywood values,” as so forth. The media has been taken over by large corproations for some years now. In fact the opposite is true, the media never investigated the lies that mislead us into the Iraq debacle, cheerleaded for that war, never investigated the flagrant election fraud and voter disenfranchisement in 2004, the outrageous culture of corruption in Bush’s Washington, and so on down the line.
Yes there is such a thing as Hollywood values, but it is not the permissive or left-wing type the eight windg media likes to play on. It is greed and power. Capitalism at is roughest and toughest. It’s like saying Russia has never admitted the KGB’s love afafir with the free market or Stalin’s love affair with the rule of law.
HUACunder Joe McCarthy was out of control and many people were prosecuted there for no or little reason at all. As for producers getting their orders from the Kremlin instead of Jacvk Warner or other studio bosses, I’d like you to cite one Hollywood film extolling the virtues of Stalinistic Russia.
Try to remmeber that we can be brainwashed in America too. Only the basic freedoms of our constitution and the history of our civil society give us the opportunity to push back against this brainwashing and the corruption and erosiion of our rights unlike the Soviet Union.
As for Elia Kazan being a hero who proactively exposed a communist threat in America, I know they book you are citing from. He was an honest if not particularly morally courageous man who admitted that he went along with Joe Mcarthy and HUAC because he was a survivor; Elia Kazan wanted to make more movies and he knew that he need to play ball with uncle Joe to do so. I liked his movies by the way even if I’m not enanored of his courage. But at least he was honest unlike the extreme right today who live on lies.
I think we both agree about the basic values of democracy, individual rights and the rule of law. I actively supported Vaclav Havel and his pro-democracy and civil society group in the 1980′s. And don’t forget that Solidarity was a union movment . George Bush senior did everything but spit on Havel when he came to this country even though he got a standing ovation from the US Senate. Ronald Regan made no secret of his design to crush the unions in America.
So what are you doing now to fight for our own individual rights in Ameica today, for the huge problems that are facing this great country like a healthcare system that is broken down, or about global warming, or genocide in Darfur, you name it? I’m glad you’re listening to ROS but you are spouting talk radio sopund bites. What are you doing to make this a freer, better world, how are you demonstrating your own moral courage and conviction? It doesn’t have to be a right or left kind of thing; let’s say just a basic American thing. For example, Bush has moved to cut nearly all the funds for PBS/NPR, no doubt because he beleives like you in the media’s love affair with communism or some hokkum. If he gets his way, goodbye ROS. Are you fighting back against this ploy to silence serious jorunalism and debate? Bush can’t shoot jounalists who expose his arrogance and incompetence like Stalin did. But he’s trying to silence them nevertheless.
Stand uprc21 for what is decent and right. And if someone calls you a commie tell them to go to hell!
David, you are drifting way off topic. I was responding to Sutters questions on liberalism and communism in Hollywood. I would like to stay on topic.
I will respond to the relevent questions and the statements you made in regards to this subject.
First; You say I have not worked in Hollywood and have not met the people who worked there. This means I must be brainwashed or dreaming.
I read and study many different sources before I form an opinion. You seem to think my opinion means little or nothing because I don’t have Hollywood experience. Do you feel that people who have not served in Iraq have no Business offering an opinion on the war? Must one have been a prison guard or a convict to offer opinions on prison reform? Must one have played baseball to offer a prediction on the Red Sox this season?
Sorry Dave I may not be the smartest man in the world but I read and stay informed, and I am a free American with a right to form an opinion on any subject I choose. What you are doing is tring to impose a type of censorship based soley on your own narrow beliefs.
Second: I pointed out McCarthy was out of control and over stepped his bounds I think I went even further In my negative opinion of him and his actions. He may even have been mentally impaired at the time. Although I have no proof of this. This does not however exonerate the traitorous activity of the quilty.
Third; You ask for examples of pro communist/Russian films. Here are a few Soak the Rich, Crossfire, Tender Comrade, Days of Glory, Mission to Moscow, The North Star , The Red Star, Song of Russia. Not to mention the post HUAC films that depicted the Govt as Mean rightwing tyrants intent on persecuting innocent liberal/left leaning decent American citezens. Examples; The Front, Guilty by suspicion, The House on Carroll street, The Way We Were, etc..But you are missing the point. Communist screen writers would have had a hard time making overtly pro Russian/Communist films. First they may not get through the censors second they may not make money. So what they did . And this has been admitted to by film makers like John Howard Lawson, Director Robert Rossen and screen writer Walter Bernstein was insert 5 minute segments into movies that would espouse some form of pro communist theory. They would try and have the star of the film do this in an expensive part of a scene so that the studio owners would not take it out due to the cost of reshooting. I hope this adresses your question
Third; As to Kazan I will let his words that I have previously posted speak to his character. I think they speak volumes as to what was going on at the time.
fourth ; A little about Regan. He was a member of the screen actors guild, it was only when he realized what the Communists were trying to do did he rebel. His life awas threatened by these so called benign communist union leaders, so he along with others many liberal non communists successfully fought the Union takeover. Maybe this partially explains his aversion to unions and communism. Remember Regan was once a liberal Democrat.
fifth; You ask what I am doing now to fight for individual rights in America? Im not sure what that has to do with this topic, but I served 5 years active duty in the military,much of it in the mid east another 3 years active reserve. I spent much time away from my family during this period. It does not make me special or give me a moral high ground on opinions dealing with the nation or world but I think it gives me the right to pontificate and make other people waste their time reading my views and opinions. Im also a law abiding taxpaying citizen I think that is enough.
sixth; You say Im spouting radio sound bites. I have never heard any talk show devoted to this subject. My knowledge comes from reading and talking to a relative who worked in Hollywood years ago he got me interested in the movie industry. He really never spoke of this subject but he got me interested in film something I still enjoy. This minimizing of peoples opinions by linking them to conservative talkshows is something I see to often. Does that mean any opinion garnered from a liberal talk show such as Hardball, Air America, ROS is equally without value,and lacks merit. I find this reasoning quite infintile. Debate the subject, present arguments pro and con.
seventh; I listen to ROS because I like to hear the opinions of people I dont neccesarilly agree with. I also listen to NPR CNN MSNBC I read the Globe and plenty of other left leaning forums. Im not a dyed in the wool conservative although on this site Im probably considered to the right of Strom Thurmond.
As to the govt wanting to cut funding to ROS NPR PBS I have to say They are right. I have a real problem with these outfits They take tax payer dollars and then espouse mainly liberal points of view ,this is patently unfair. I belive it is also moraly dishonest.If the country is split roughly down the middle politically than public programming should be the same. How many people who work on this site or for NPR/PBS are registersd republicans. My guess is very few. These sites and the people who run them discriminate and abuse the power they have been given. If you are a jounalist you have a duty to try and be fair and unbiased. If you take tax payer money your obligation is even more important. I have no problem with privately funded outfits leaning one way or the other politically. (I just wish they would admit it.) Publicaly funded outfits like this have a much stronger obligation to serve the whole public not just the liberal/left leaning population. I may be banned but ROS does a grave injustice to the citizens by tilting most of its stories and coverage to the left. I wonder how many conservatives work for this site? Do you want to bet there are more liberals than conservatives at ROS?
Your other points are way off topic so I wont respond to them. It would take all day.
rc21:
As far as my drifting offr topic, this is a conversation in ther spirit of ROS. You mean your topic, I started with another one. But as this is a free country, I can reply as I wish.
But to your points: 1) I worked for seventeen years as a screenwriter in Hollywood. I supported the Writers Guild of America, the screen and TV writers union that Reagan tried to destory. I also worked with a famous writer who admitted he was a communist for a time during the Great Depression and afterwards, and knew a few others. This fellow had exacting standards for his craft and firmly believed that characterization is what matters not ideas or propoganda. He wrote a draft of Cleopatra. Could you imagine trying to put a five minute communist propaganda speech into Liz Taylor’s in that movie? Hollywood was and remains relentlessly commercial. You seem to assume that these harddboiled moguls and studio execs were somehow dupes or naive. It was Jack Warner who said, “If you want to send a message, use Western Union.” Dalton Trumbo, who was blacklisted, was one of Hollywood’s greatest writers not because he had any axe to grind but because his charactes were memorable, his stories moving on a human level that trainscends ideology. Watch Spartacus again and you’ll see what I mean. If only e had more wrters like him in this era of corporate blandness.
As far as the 1940′s films you mentioned, they were all made when The Soviet Union was an ally of ours. The studios were actually asked by the government to make propoganda films about the war and our allies. I guess by the same logic you would have to call the US governement communist sympathizers for asking the studios to make propoganda films about the brave Soviets fighting fascist Germany. But let’s take a few examples. I’ll read you the logline from Movies on TV by Seven Scheur. Crossfire: “This B picture with a social angle deserves credit for it. It’s an exciting tale of an anti-semetic murderer pursured by the police, but one wishes the film’s source material had been adhered to. In the novel, the victim was homosexual; here he was made Jewish. However, hates are not interchangeable.” Mission to Moscow: “A fine, well-played movie adaptation by ex-ambassador to Russia Joseph Davies.” Days of Glory: “Russian guerillas beat back the Nazi enemy.” Song of Russia: “Believe it or not, Robert Taylor is a symphony conductor touring the USSR whre he weds a Russain girl. This well-meaning, vapid tale was initiated by the US govt. as propoganda for our former allies in WWII. However, during the Red Witch hunt of of the 50′s, some of the films participanrts were rewarded with black-listing.” As for the post HUAC films, I could not disagree with you more. If you had had experience in Hollywood, or followed how these hearing werer conducted by uncle Joe more closely, you would know that to just be asked to appear before the infamous committee meant the end of your career. And Joe was going after “fellow travlers.” In other words”Guilty by suspicion.”
Yes any baseball fan can have an educated opinion about the prospects of their favorite team. But If there is some theroy about a homsexual conspiracy in big league locker rooms, or that the World Series was fixed in 2006, it might be important to have had some experience as a player to speak intelligently about those accusations.
My point is that, given the structure and values of Hollywood, any communist propoganda was minimal. To say that Hollywood was “infiltrated” by communists is a gross exageration that runs contrary to reality.
Kazan’s character: I suggest you read his autobiography again. He does say that he named names to save his career. If he wanted to save America from communism he would have joined the army like you did.
Roanld Regan: the guy was out to destroy the unions. And he did a good job of it. He was also waged war on the poor and the middle class.
I commend you for yor service in the military. I am heartened that patriotism still runs strong in this country.
I apologize if I charactereized you as someone who mindlessly spouts the republican political attack line on “Hollywood values.” In fact I admire you for listening to ROS even though you are to the right of what you perceive to be its political bias. I listen to ROS because of the depth of its discussion and the qaulity of its topics, guests, and host. I’m sure you do the same. But I think you must admit that one of Bush/Cheney-Rove’s dirty tricks was to split the country, to exploit the Christian Right, for example, over the issue of gay marriage with a background of unexpressed homophobia. I really believe this kind of thing is bad for America, and I would admonish the democrats if they did the same thing. They also exploited those wo are genuinely worried about morality in this country by decrying Hollywood values. The irony is that Hollywood values are fudamentally the values of the marketplace. For example, violence sells, that is why wer get so many mindless action flicks. But would Bush criticize businesses who do not put adequate pollution controls on their factroies and utilities even though their motivation is simply the bottom-line. The hypocrcsy and cynical exploitation of citizens’ good faith is just to much here… Yes, I’m glad the Dixe Chicks one big in the grammies!
Finally, yes, NPR/PBS seems to have a liberal bias. I could try to anlyze why that is but I suspect you wouldn’t agree with me anyhow. The point is that if you listen to local and national/cable news for an hour or two and then tune into shows on PBS and NPR, you at least get greater depth and breadth of what is going on. ButZI listen to the Commonwealth Club and shows that have nothing to do with news or politics on NPR and feel nourished by them in mind and spirit in a way I don’t with commerical media. In fact I don’t even own a television anymore. I get my news online and from NPR.
I think that if Bush and company were morally honest, they would demand of NPR/PBS to try to balance its programming interms of politcal opinion or influence. I think that listners like you should use your power as taxpayers to demand the same thing.
But as a patriot and someone who defended and believes in basic American rights such as a free press, I think you can see that the move by the Bush adminstration is just a mean-spirited and undemocratic move the far right (I assume you are not there) to suppress what it perceives to be its political opposition. I wouldn’t say tht this is a communistic/Soviet tactic but one that every totalitarian government, on the left or right, has tried to do over the course of history.
I hope I have responded to your points and have not wandered too far off the topic you wanted to explore. In any case, I am happy to have met a person of substance and principle, even if we do not see eye-to-eye about certain issues. Chalk this one up to the good influence of ROS, whatever their political social opinions might be.
Dave:
Good post, we just seem to disagree about certain aspects. I agree with you to an extent on these issues
Yes many movies were made during WW2 and had to show Russia as an ally. This however does not exonerate or minimize the fact that certain screenwriters and producers were trying to put pro communist/Russian messages in there films. All at the behest of the Russian govt, and for the sole purpose of helping communism over throw the govt. This can not be denied there is evidence and self admissions that this took place. That is all I was trying to point out. Maybe you working in Hollywood and being part of that environment has caused you to be more sympathetic to the lefts version of the events of the cold war. I know I would be predisposed to show support for the outfit I was associated with.
How effective they were –who knows. I also agree that many communists and leftys were not involved, they just wanted to make good films. And they made great films. I love the classics.
I also agree with you as to your feelings on the studio execs. My feeling is they did not care so much about the content of the movies being made, only that they make money.
I also agree the HUAC hearings went to far and McCarthy was out of control.
Our main difference of opinion lies in the fact that you think the problem was insignificant. I tend to think it was substantial enough to warrant action.
Lets paint a different scenario. Imagine if these people were all Nazi sympathizers or members of the Nazi party . Would not investigations be warranted.
Or how about in todays world. Say a percentage of Hollywoods film makers were members of Al Quieda or supporters of the taliban or other terror groups would not investigations be neccesary? Remember Communist Russia swore to overthrow the USA by political and/or violent means.
This is probably the point in which we have the most disagreement. Unfortunately I think it is the most important point of the topic.
As to the side items. Sure Rove used wedge issues in the elections just as the Dems did. Race baiting class warfare are some of the common ones used. Lets not forget republicans also want to starve the poor. If we are both honest lets admit both parties play the game and both are effective at it.
As to the NPR/PBS issue I think republican reps are actually doing the democratic thing. They represent conservative/republican districts with conservative taxpayers. They have an obligation to demand fairness and representation for their constituents tax dollars. What NPR/PBS is doing is truly undemocratic and unfair. Talk about taxation without representaition. I think we fought a revolution over this.
I also agree with you that commercial media has gotten so bad that I rarely watch it anymore. Last night I threw in the dvd ”Action in the North Atlantic” Staring Humphrey Bogart. The screen writer was admited communist John Henry Lawrence. Great film.
Yes you have a right to speak on any topic I did not mean to cut you off. It is just that it gets hard to respond to everything that is thrown out there and I eventually end up writing a book in response.
One last very ironic point. Did you know the much criticized HUAC commitee was started and chaired by a democratic congressman who later was proven to be a Soviet agent? The first hearings were in regards to Nazi sympathizers working in the USA. Good talking to you.
RC21:
I’m happy that we have been able to see each other’s point a little more. If there was only more of this in our polaraized, sound-bitten society today.
I have mixed feeeling about Hollywood, particularly Hollywood today because the powers that be seem to not care to make classics anymore, or even know what they are, but I am sypathetic to screenwriters because I am and realized what it is like to be the last man on the totem pole so to speak in an industry. Also because the screenwiter makes the fundamental creative contribution to the process of filmmaking but is in no way recognized for that. But it is not becasue I am left-leaning (a Clinton democrat without Monica). In fact I love John Wayne films, particularly the westerns, much of Chuck Heston (not the sci-fi), and I think the consistently most interesting, courageous director today is Clint Eastwoood. All of these folks are right of center s ws Cecil B. deMille before them.
I agree that any writer, director or actor taking direct orders from Moscow during the cold war about what to put into a film were committing some form of treason. But knowing the industry as a professional screenwriter, where every scene, every line is veted by the producer and the studio, and where the origianl writer is usually rewritten at least once, I find it highly improbable that any direct Marxist propoganda could get into a film. If so, the message would have to be so oblique that it wojld pass over the heads of the average filmgoing audience member anyhow. If, by chance, some bit of communist propoganda got into a film, it would be laughable and no one would take it seriously.
Come to think of it, I met Ben Bzarzman once, one of the Hollywood ten, knew his wife and daughter. Here is another example of a committed Marxist at one time whose committment to making good films outweighed any pressure to use the medium for propoganda purposes. He did most of the writing on EL Cid but was denied credit because he was black-listed. In summary, my sense of having kown some of the people you are writing about, and having worked in the industry, that the vast majority of communist filmmakers, card-carrying or not, did not sacrfice their artistic integrity for the party. And those who did, had no significant impact on the output of Hollywood.
This is not to say that these folks, and others on the left were not interested in social and economic justice. But becasue of their comitment to their artform, and the (crassly) commerical and controlled nature of Hollywoood, these films had to be above all entertaining. I admire them and others who fought to make good or great films.
While I think that the influence of the communist party hacks on the Hollywood system was insignificant for these reasons, I do agree that the whole area of Soviet espionage in our society was extremely important and did warrant every effort to counteract it. It is chilling to learn how effective the KGB was in infiltrating our nuclear weapons program, for example, how they basically shaved years off their own program by stealing top secret information.
But what I do decry HUAC under McCarthy, is that that body became a defacto court of law without all the American rights of due process. Lives and careers were ruined by innuendo, incomplete or misleading information or association without recousrse to a jury, discovery, cross-examination and all that we expect form our system of justice. People were brought up to HUAC “to make an example of.” This approaches the outrage of the show trials of Stalinist Russia. Remember these poeple were brought before these Soviet kangaroo courts because they were deemed to be enemies of that state. Of course HUAC wasn’t as bad, no one was summarily shot, but even to approach what we most despise is a lesson in itself.
As for wedge issues, I think the current Bush/Cheney-Rove team has perfected this political strategem. While I do admit that the dems did hit hard and unfairly in the sixties and earlier, Ann Coulter publically labeling John Edwards “a faggot” is the epitomy of what I mean. Anyhow, I agree that our public/political discourse needs to step up to the dignity of the American people.
As far as NPR/PBS liberal bias, I am all for republican representatives and taxpayers using our democratic system to achieve an acceptable balance. But you don’t wan’t to throw the baby out with the bathwater by destroying PBS/NPR altogether as Bush and his cronies would want to do. I think Thomas Jefferson was very prescient when he warned that our democracy depends on the education and discernemtnt of its electorate.
Finally, I do happen to know something about the 1930′s HUAC investigation into a fascist/right wing attempt to take over the White House and declare marshal law. Apparently some of the big money interests and corporations in the US at the time, including the Morgan bank and Dupont, were terrified that Rooosevelt was going to ruin our financial system, particuarly after he went off the gold standard to underwrite his recovery programs. The plot, which turns comic in its ineptitude, turns on trying to buy off a very popular Marine General, Smedly Butler, to march on Washington D.C. with the help of veterans groups, imprison Rooosevelt, and under marshall law put in their own man as president. Butler played along with the intrgue, got the goods on the conspirators, and then brought it to the senate. The man who tried to buy of Generel Butler was a bonds salesman for one of the big brokerage houses. He was also sent to Europe in the 30′s to study the fascist groups there and report back with the goal of seeding fascist groups here.
But unlike the HUAC of Joe McCarthy, the monied interest made sure most newspapers didn’t cover it, or made light of the charges. The one newspaper that did cover the story in a substantial way was the Philadelphia Inquier. And also unlike anti-communist HUAC, this investigatory committee did not press charges or call the key players when they learned that it was several of the captains of our big financial concerns and industry that were behind it.
Sort of sunds like a Frank Capra movie, Meet John Doe, doesn’t it? But this time truth is stranger than fiction.
So, yes there has always been the threat of the farr ight and the left in this country. It was Franklin Delano Rooseveklt, in my opinion, who saved this country from either a fascist and communsit takeover after the stocik market crashed and the Great Depression started with his New Deal, which gave Americans hope in he American dream once again, even though FDR seems very liberal to some these days.
And it was this kind of American dream that Hollywood played on where “the little guy” had a fighting against the rich and influential to make his way in the world. And this is some of the great appeal that Hollywood movies had to the rest of thee world where so many countries did not have the basic freedoms or opportunity whre the “little guy” or gal could make it.
So I think e are still very fortuante in this country for the freedom and opportunity it affords. But as Jefferson said, the price of freedom is eternal vigalence against tyranny, whether it be from the left or right.
But I do feel comforted, that there are those like you, RC21, no matter what political affiliation, who cherish these same basic values, and who have stepped up tp protect them in the military and by keeping yourself informed of history and the issues of the day with a fair and open mind.
I have enjoyed dialoguing with you and look forward to reading your posts on other threds.
Take care,
David
Just listened to this on podcast, albeit late, however I had to stop listening as soon as the conversation turned to Al Gore’s appearance and weight. Are you serious?? Is this Star Weekly Radio? Not only was this turn of discussion trite, it was offensive. Just another method of character assasination a la Los Angeles.
I think Al Gore’s promise as a leader of any kind, political, activist or other should not be dicussed in regards to his appearance, and I’m really disappointed that this show, which I listen to often and truly respect allowed the conversation to go there and stay there for more than a half-second.