I guest lectured in a college class the other day and got into a lively discussion with one student over how people treat Elia Kazan, the director of movies such as "Gentleman's Agreement," "A Streetcar Named Desire" and "On the Waterfront." I said he was one of the greatest American film directors who helped change film acting forever and he was also a loathsome human being who betrayed innocent people to save his own career. I was referring to his decision to "name names" before the House Un-American Activities Committee in the 1950s, keeping him off the blacklist.
The student, who is Greek, acknowledged his doing so but treated it as a social faux pas (he only gave them names they already had, she asserted) and something utterly irrelevant to assessing his professional contributions. In fact both his movies and his testifying were in his professional capacity, and whether the committee had the names or not, he was giving his endorsement to the Hollywood blacklist, something which destroyed the lives and careers of wholly innocent people. As I pointed out, we might disapprove of Communism but advocating it wasn't against the law. The people Kazan named had done nothing wrong except express an unpopular opinion.
The problem was that this student saw an injustice being done to Kazan, whose work is still rightly honored, because she had no real concept of the injustice he had been a party to. Had I known the topic was going to come up I might have prepared a short reading list on the topic which certainly would have included these three books:
A journal of the plague years by Stefan Kanfer is a highly readable historical overview of the blacklist period. Only Victims: A Study of Show Business Blacklisting was the Ph.D. thesis of none other than actor Robert Vaughn and goes into the price paid by those who were blacklisted. Naming Names is Victor Navasky's stunning study of why people chose to give up their colleagues to HUAC and the rationalizations they gave (such as "they already had the names") which often turned out not to be true.
I don't fault the student for not knowing this history, much of which happened before either of us was born. I do hope she will learn of it.
The student, who is Greek, acknowledged his doing so but treated it as a social faux pas (he only gave them names they already had, she asserted) and something utterly irrelevant to assessing his professional contributions. In fact both his movies and his testifying were in his professional capacity, and whether the committee had the names or not, he was giving his endorsement to the Hollywood blacklist, something which destroyed the lives and careers of wholly innocent people. As I pointed out, we might disapprove of Communism but advocating it wasn't against the law. The people Kazan named had done nothing wrong except express an unpopular opinion.
The problem was that this student saw an injustice being done to Kazan, whose work is still rightly honored, because she had no real concept of the injustice he had been a party to. Had I known the topic was going to come up I might have prepared a short reading list on the topic which certainly would have included these three books:
A journal of the plague years by Stefan Kanfer is a highly readable historical overview of the blacklist period. Only Victims: A Study of Show Business Blacklisting was the Ph.D. thesis of none other than actor Robert Vaughn and goes into the price paid by those who were blacklisted. Naming Names is Victor Navasky's stunning study of why people chose to give up their colleagues to HUAC and the rationalizations they gave (such as "they already had the names") which often turned out not to be true.
I don't fault the student for not knowing this history, much of which happened before either of us was born. I do hope she will learn of it.
date
newest »
newest »
Some People, of course, are also trying to rehabilitate McCarthy, and insist that he was "proved right."Perhaps in future plan for the possibility of the subject coming up, and have the reading list and an explanation of what happened ready to go?
Lis wrote: "Some People, of course, are also trying to rehabilitate McCarthy, and insist that he was "proved right."Perhaps in future plan for the possibility of the subject coming up, and have the reading l..."
I do when I teach the subject (such as when I screen "High Noon," "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" or "On the Waterfront") but this was something that just came out of the blue. I sent a link for my blog post to the instructor who will pass it along to the class.
Sad that this impulse to hunt out and fear the other is still with us today http://media.caglecartoons.com/media/...
My being Greek has nothing to do with your argument; just like your being Jewish is irrelevant. McCarthy threatened Elia Kazan with deportation. It was Twentieth Century Fox founder Spyro Skouras who convinced him that the threat of deportation was very real. To understand what deportation meant to a man like Kazan you must first see his film “America, America.” His Uncle was the first to come to America from Turkey at a time when Greek and Armenian communities were living under constant fear. Elia Kazan would have preferred a death sentence over deportation. I am very happy to know that that situation doesn’t exist in Turkey today. Unfortunately the large Greek community that once occupied Asia Minor and Istanbul (Constantinople) left Turkey for safety.
I feel the media has unfairly judged Kazan’s decision to name members of the Communist Party. Ronald Reagan did much more as the head of the Screen Actors Guild, yet no one says anything against him. Instead we elected him president of the United States. Bud Shulberg came from Hollywood royalty, and he named names.
It is also unfair to see how Hollywood has used this as an excuse to erase Elia Kazan’s monumental contributions. I was amazed to see how his name was missing from Placards in Hollywood depicting the works he directed. The Actors Studio he created along with Crawford and Lewis is considered the greatest acting school in America. Lee Strausberg who came years after the school was opened seems to be getting all the recognition for what is clearly Kazan’s contribution. I saw a PBS a documentary that claims Strausberg invented method acting and created the Actors Studio. Method acting is credited to Constantine Stanislovski. Who is rewriting history?
It's very sad that members of the Hollywood elite would single out one of Hollywood's greatest directors, mentors and father figures to so many actors and vilify him as the fall guy.This is clearly not right. This is a miscarriage of justice.
You think it would be different if he had made crappy movies no one liked, or is it a miscarriage of justice because he was "one of Hollywood's greatest directors, mentors and father figures"?Do we excuse this kind of behavior based on how talented the person is?
I do not see his achievements being "erased." He is still rightly regarded as one of the great film and theater directors. Reagan is irrelevant to the argument. He is a saint to the same far right that sees Joe McCarthy as a "victim" so of course they don't blame him. And Budd Schulberg was just as praised for his work and reviled for his cowardly betrayal of old friends as was Kazan. I wonder if you feel the same way about the way the Director's Guild of America has tried to erase D.W. Griffith because of one film he made.
Gordon wrote: "It's very sad that members of the Hollywood elite would single out one of Hollywood's greatest directors, mentors and father figures to so many actors and vilify him as the fall guy.This is clear..."
Kazan is not "singled out." For many of us most of the people who named names are reviled. Assessment of their work has to be separate from assessment of their lives, but as human beings Kazan and Schulberg were failures who betrayed innocent people to save themselves and never apologized for it.
It is, as Dan says, quite possible to admire and value someone's achievements and contributions, and at the same time condemn cowardice, betrayal of friends, and betrayal of principal. Naming names to HUAC is not something that can just be brushed aside.I can't, of course, comment on the contents of a "PBS documentary" that you don't even bother to name.
For instance, Let's take Al-Qaeda today and the threat it poses to our national security.Pakistan develops nuclear weapons and has a country full of Al-Qaeda sympathizers. That may mean Al-Qaeda has the potential of getting their hands on a device that can destroy a whole city. I would think that anyone who sympathizes with them in our country should be considered a potential threat to our security. During the height of the Cold War when the United States and the Soviet Union were engaged in the biggest nuclear arms race ever and we knew the Soviets had deployed a sophisticated intelligence gathering spy network inside our country, Americans had a duty to cooperate with our government.
Bud Shulberg felt he was doing his duty as an American by cooperating with the government of the United States. Elia Kazan loved his adopted country. If you had been threatened with deportation for not cooperating with your government during the height of the Cold War, I doubt you would have done anything different from Kazan. Right or wrong, when our government is engaged in matters concerning National Security, your conscience leaves you little choice in such situations. Joseph McCarthy was a duly elected United States senator. Nine of the people on his infamous list (of approximately 160) have been confirmed Soviet informers. It doesn't make it right that he destroyed so many innocent lives, but it does prove that ordinary citizens have little knowledge or choice but to cooperate with our government when our National Security endangered. Communism was on a global mission of expansion. If not for the Marshall Plan, countries like Greece and most of Western Europe were literally being starved to death and on the brink of falling to the Communists. It was all about global domination.
Hollywood elitists and the media chose to ostracize Elia Kazan for doing what any American citizen would be expected to do when our government comes knocking on our door. They fought hard to deny him the recognition for his great works and achievements. The Actors Studio owes its very existence to Elia Kazan. Lee Strausberg is unfairly receiving credit for Kazan's enormous contribution.
It is un-American to blame Shulberg and Kazan for cooperating with our government especially during the Cold War. We elect our government to represent us. If we do not like the way they serve our country, we should vote them out of office. Ordinary citizens have a duty to cooperate with our government whose purpose is to protect our nation. Matters of national security take precedent every time. The innocent people hurt by this should blame Joseph McCarthy and the system of government that failed to protect them and allowed this injustice. I feel this is how I must behave as a citizen who can proudly recite the United States Pledge of Allegiance.
Sparta, you are deeply confused.Yes, Al Qaeda is a threat. And someone who cooperates with them is a threat.
Someone who, at one time, knew someone who later became a member of Al Qaeda is not a threat. And that's what Tailgunner Joe did: publicly declare that people were "known communists" whose connection was very tangential, limited to having known someone at some time before they became communists.
It was further complicated by the fact that during WWII, the USSR was our ally. And during the thirties, we were going through the Great Depression, and young people flirted with communism who later abandoned it utterly, or who, like a now deceased writer I knew, remained communists but turned absolutely against the USSR after discovering how the country was really run. So there were an awful lot of loyal Americans who, if asked under oath "Are you now or have you ever been a communist?" would have to either say yes, or refuse to answer.
I'm curious as to where you get your figure of 160 names. McCarthy repeatedly claimed, in his Wheeling speech and after, that there were 205 -- or 57 -- or 81 "known communists" in the State Department. When Eisenhower became president and did the normal thing of replacing Truman's political appointees with his own political appointees, McCarthy praised him for removing "1,456 Truman holdovers who were [...] gotten rid of because of Communist connections and activities or perversion." There was no basis for this accusation against nearly 1500 Americans; McCarthy made it anyway.
He frequently raged on about "twenty years of treason"--meaning the Democratic administrations preceding Eisenhower, and when Eisenhower proved not to be a fan of his methods, it became "twenty-one years of treason."
His aide, Roy Cohn, toured Europe checking out the State Dept. libraries there, looking for authors and works he considered unacceptable.
He investigated Voice of America, and claimed the broadcasts were communist-influenced. None of the charges were substantiated, but it had a terrible effect on the morale of the agency, and one engineer committed suicide.
I could go on. And on. And on.
McCarthy was a ruthless, unprincipled, anti-democracy demagogue. He destroyed the lives of hundreds, and damaged the lives of thousands, and made millions of Americans live in fear of reading the wrong book or being friendly to the wrong person.
No, the fact that he was a "duly elected US Senator" did not create an obligation in anyone else to go along with what he was doing. The Kennedy family were very friendly with him; Robert Kennedy took a job as a lawyer for his committee--and resigned after six months because he couldn't support McCarthy & Cohn's methods, and refused to be associated with their crusade. Other duly elected US Senators did not support him; the duly elected President Truman and the duly elected President Eisenhower did not support him.
You say "anyone" would have done what Kazan did, but other people didn't. You make much of the threat of deportation, but many other people refused and accepted that their careers would be wrecked by doing so.
They had the courage and commitment to principle that Elia Kazan lacked.
"Ordinary citizens" do not have an obligation to, or even an excuse for, abdicating their own intelligence, judgment, and commitment to American values and principles and the US Constitution because some elected official somewhere tells them they should. "National security" is not a trump card, overriding all constitutional concerns.
A patriotic American has an obligation to support the Constitution, and not to support those who would use it as toilet paper.
Liz, I am deeply amused.My argument stands for itself. One thing is to lose six years from your career; another is to be permanently deported. What Joe McCarthy did is without a doubt a crime. The system failed those people whose names were named. Shulberg and Kazan simply cooperated with OUR government. We are talking about two screenwriters and directors, not intelligence officers. They did what the government asked them to do. The SYSTEM failed them. If someone from our National Security Department knocked on your door and asked you to provide information, would you refuse to cooperate or filter the information you would share? I would completely cooperate. That’s why we pay these people to protect us. Blame the system. Let’s not make Kazan and Shulberg the fall guys.
With reference to your last line: “A patriotic American has an obligation to support the Constitution, and not to support those who would use it as toilet paper,” DOESN’T THAT INCLUDE COOPERATING WITH YOUR GOVERNMENT, LIZ?
One more thing Liz:Our system is by far not perfect, but I still feel it is the best in the world. The tension that exists over the possibility of war results in mass hysteria, and unfortunately innocent people suffer. The system failed miserably after the Japanese invaded Pearl Harbor. The internment camps that were built that unlawfully incarcerated so many law abiding Japanese Americans was a real tragedy. It only shows the extent to which governments will go concerning matters of National Security. Once again, I repeat, it was the system failed.
Sparta, you could at least have the courtesy to spell my name correctly. Seeing as you have no place to get the spelling except from my screen name, and therefore any other spelling comes out of your own head, and your own choice.I'm a librarian. That means that, if the FBI, or the CIA, or any other government agency, comes to me and wants to see what books you've checked out of the library, or what internet sites you've visited while using library computers, I tell them NO unless they have a warrant.
And yeah, that means even if they tell me you are A SEKRIT SCARY TERRORIST, or might be. Or might have met one, one time, when you were both kids and had not a single political thought in your heads. That's what the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments are all about.
Holding unpopular political opinions isn't a crime. Joe McCarthy tried to make having ever known anyone with unpopular political opinions a crime. You admit that what he did was a crime--and yet you miss the point that even soldiers in the Army are legally bound to disobey illegal orders.
Soldiers have to be very, very, very careful the order they are not sure about really is illegal, but if it really is and they know it, they are bound by their oaths to disobey it.
Every American citizen has the same obligation to uphold the Constitution and not support criminal and anti-Constitutional activities such as Joseph McCarthy's.
Cooperating with my government is one thing; cooperating with one government official clearly operating outside and in opposition to the Constitution is another.
People died because of McCarthy's vile antics. People lost everything they had. And he was lying. He didn't even believe his claims. He called Dwight David Eisnehower a traitor. He called almost 1500 Americans, losing their jobs in the Executive Branch as part of normal political turnover, Communists because they were Democrats and because it suited his political purposes.
You talk about Kazan's fear of being deported. Here's a free clue: he wasn't the only immigrant caught up in this, and a US Senator does not have the power to deport anyone. The courts and the State Dept. have that responsibility.
This isn't the old Soviet Union. It's not Chile under Pinochet. The government serves us, not the other way around, and when a demagogue tries to criminalize thought, opinions, or just knowing someone, that demagogue needs to be reminded of his place.
And there were people who did that. From Wikipedia; it's easily accessible and the account is accurate:
The most famous incident in the hearings was an exchange between McCarthy and the army's chief legal representative, Joseph Nye Welch. On June 9, the 30th day of the hearings, Welch challenged Roy Cohn to provide U.S. Attorney General Herbert Brownell, Jr. with McCarthy's list of 130 Communists or subversives in defense plants "before the sun goes down". McCarthy stepped in and said that if Welch was so concerned about persons aiding the Communist Party, he should check on a man in his Boston law office named Fred Fisher, who had once belonged to the National Lawyers Guild, which Brownell had called "the legal mouthpiece of the Communist Party".[83] In an impassioned defense of Fisher that some have suggested he had prepared in advance and had hoped not to have to make,[84] Welch responded, "Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness[...]" When McCarthy resumed his attack, Welch interrupted him: "Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?" When McCarthy once again persisted, Welch cut him off and demanded the chairman "call the next witness". At that point, the gallery erupted in applause and a recess was called.[85]
McCarthy claimed there were 130 Communists in the Defense Dept.; when asked to provide the list quickly, he instead chose to destroy a young lawyer who was guilty of nothing, solely to pay Welch back for his reasonable and appropriate demand. And you think everyone should have done what Elia Kazan and other unprincipled cowards did: cooperate with him and just hope not too much damage was done to the country before his demagoguery ran its course.
No, sorry, that is not the American way, and not behavior an American should expect not to be condemned for.
Sparta wrote: "One more thing Liz:Our system is by far not perfect, but I still feel it is the best in the world. The tension that exists over the possibility of war results in mass hysteria, and unfortunately ..."
One of the challenges of being an American is that you don't get to knowingly cooperate with evil and then blame it on "the system." There's a reason Joseph Welch was held up as a hero when I was younger, and why Edward R. Murrow, for all the fluff personality journalism he did, is held up as an example for the rest of the profession.
And there's a reason why, for all the great film-making he was responsible for, Elia Kazan is not regard as a hero, a positive example, or an icon.
I apologize for the misspelling of your name. There was no disrespect intended. Just as there is no disrespect intended in pointing out your failure to proofread your last response: “And there's a reason why, for all the great film-making he was responsible for, Elia Kazan is not regard as a hero, a positive example, or an icon.”“Articles in Wikipedia may be well written and insightful, but they are not embedded in the world of scholarly discourse. Without knowing who wrote the article, it is more difficult to judge whether the author's writing is worthy of consideration, or to critique his or her motivations or qualifications. Without a known author, Wikipedia articles cannot be considered authoritative.” (ttp://library.williams.edu/citing/wik...) As a librarian, I thought you would have been more selective choosing your source.
Sparta, if you had wanted to make yourself look good, you would have simply apologized for misspelling my name, not looked for and quoted a far less loaded typo in my response in order to justify yourself. People's names aren't just like other words; a person's name is connected to their sense of personal identity.As for citing Wikipedia, no, in and of itself, it's not an authoritative source. What you have missed, or dismissed, is that I mentioned that, and "... it's easily accessible and the account is accurate:"
Aside from my own personal memories of watching the film of that confrontation between McCarthy and Welch many times right through grade school, high school and college, that quoted paragraph is heavily footnoted to authoritative sources. You can check those sources yourself in your own university library, or public library, or you buy order the books online and read them.
If this were a research paper, rather than an online conversation, I would be citing the books, not the Wikipedia article. In the course of an online conversation, though, it's more helpful to cite sources people can look at without getting up from the computer, and when a Wikipedia article is properly written and properly sourced, citing to the Wikipedia article is more helpful than citing to the sources it cites.
But since you're not happy with that, and you have apparently never seen this episode from the Army-McCarthy hearings, you can watch it for yourself now, on Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAur_I...
Watch and listen to what McCarthy does; it's sheer, unmotivated cruelty and indecency. There is no national security issue with a young lawyer who did not, in fact, in any way participate in the hearings or see any of the documents involved. McCarthy goes after him just because he can, and to punish Welch for wanting to actually see the supposed list of 130 "communists in the Defense Dept."
It's that cruelty and recklessness that Welch opposed, and that Kazan chose to support.
I go away for a few hours...Brava, Lis, for a well-argued, principled case. Sparta is correct about the unreliability of Wikipedia and I do not allow my students to cite it, but you are equally correct that a.) this account is accurate and b.) sources are provided.
Sparta, I'll grant you the Actor's Studio may be rewriting their own history out of the shame over Kazan's perfidy. That is wrong. The rest of your argument fails because Kazan's films continue to be held up as classics of American cinema and he was repeatedly honored for them in his lifetime.
My advice is to do what I said in my blog post, and do some reading on the blacklist period. Your characterization of it falls far from the reality of it. Another book I'll recommend is "The Great Fear" by David Caute which gives a history of the whole post-war Red scare, not just Hollywood.
I will read the books you recommend. However, I stand by my opinion that Kazan has been made the fall guy. The system failed.I feel you are wrong to say Reagan is irrelevant when he was the head of the Screen Actors Guild. We all know that Reagan did more as an informer than everyone combined. It is hypocritical to say Reagan is irrelevant to this argument. Were you out there protesting Reagan's candidacy for President with the same crowd that attacked Kazan? The truth is Hollywood's elitists went after the most vulnerable man. They chose to use that as an excuse to venerate Lee Strausberg for what is clealy Elia Kazan's achievements. Every Hollywood director and actor for the past fifty years has benefited from Kazan's methods and work, whether they want to admit it or not. Marlon Brando is quoted as saying "Lee Strausberg would take credit for the sun and the moon if he could." He also tried taking credit for teaching Brando.
It is disgusting to aid and abet the Strausberg myth at Elia Kazan's expense. That is Hollywood's crime. No excuses. Kazan created the Actors Studio with Crawford and Lewis. Kazan discovered Marlon Brando, James Dean, Warren Beatty, Natalie Wood, etc.
I have come to the conclusion from my research that vilifying Kazan is an orchestrated method that members of Hollywood and the media are using to systematically give others the credit for Elia Kazan's achievements.
I feel you are wrong to say Reagan is irrelevant when he was the head of the Screen Actors Guild. We all know that Reagan did more as an informer than everyone combined. It is hypocritical to say Reagan is irrelevant to this argument. Were you out there protesting Reagan's candidacy for President with the same crowd that attacked Kazan?Sparta, you are really barking up the wrong tree here. Dan is the very opposite of a fan of Ronald Reagan, either personally or politically. Dan didn't say Reagan was innocent, or a good guy, or not an informer; he said Reagan's guilt or innocence is irrelevant to the issue of Kazan.
You can't disprove or diminish Elia Kazan's guilt by pointing to Ronald Reagan's.
The truth is Hollywood's elitists went after the most vulnerable man.
Until his successful campaign for governor of California, Reagan was a not very important B-movie actor. Instead of his body of work being widely admired, it is instead widely mocked. Elia Kazan wasn't more vulnerable; he was more important.
They chose to use that as an excuse to venerate Lee Strausberg for what is clealy Elia Kazan's achievements. Every Hollywood director and actor for the past fifty years has benefited from Kazan's methods and work, whether they want to admit it or not.
His work as a director is widely admired and cited. He just doesn't get a free pass on betraying his friends and colleagues in front of HUAC because of it.
Bingo, Lis. Sparta defeats her own argument by noting (here and in the paper she gave me an extra copy of) just how widely praised Kazan's achievements are. The reason Kazan is singled out -- and he's hardly the only "friendly witness" who has been widely criticized -- was that he was the biggest guy to name names. If Kazan had defied the committee he still could have worked in the theater where there was no blacklist. Instead he gave up names not of terrorists and traitors, but of friends and colleagues who had had the misfortune to be present at meetings with him many years earlier.Another director who spent the rest of his life under a cloud for naming names was Edward Dmytryk. Sparta if you really want to grapple with what it was like to have to make the decision to testify or not, Victor Navasky's book mentioned in my original post is the one to read.
Excuse me, but I did not once claim "just how widely praised Kazan's achievements are." I did, however, list individuals who were all students of Kazan who praised him (sounds pretty narrow to me) with the exception of Roger Ebert. Ronald Reagan ran for the highest office in our country. Hollywood and the media didn't attempt to stop him. It is ridiculous to say that Reagan wasn't high profile. There has been a systematic effort orchestrated by Hollywood elitists and the media to overshadow Kazan's achievements and rewrite history to benefit their own agenda.
I repeat that I have come to the conclusion from my research that vilifying Elia Kazan is an orchestrated method that members of Hollywood and the media are using to systematically give others the credit for Elia Kazan's achievements. Believe what you will.
It is comforting to me to know that our national security is not dependent on Mr. Kimmel's and Lis's cooperation or lack thereof.
I suggest you read the widespread criticism of Reagan from both Hollywood and the general media. They could hardly "stop" him, but there certainly wasn't opposition. The problem with this comparison is that Kazan was a public witness who took out a full page ad in the New York papers boasting about his testimony. Reagan spoke to the FBI (not the committee) in private, and it wasn't until many years later that that came out. Indeed, a Google search indicates that it didn't become public until 1985, AFTER his re-election as president. It wasn't an issue when he ran for president in 1980 or 1984 because the public had no idea.http://www.time.com/time/magazine/art...
I don’t see any boasting. The ad speaks for itself. http://www.reelclassics.com/Directors...
Martin Scorcese and Robert De Niro are the only reason Kazan received an Oscar in recognition of Lifetime Achievement. They saw the injustice; they exposed the conspiracy.
Actually you are misinformed. Scorsese and DeNiro agreed to accompany Kazan the night of the award. The actual award -- usually given to someone who had been overlooked by the Oscars and not someone who had won more than once -- was engineered by Karl Malden who had worked for Kazan and was then president of the Academy.There was no "conspiracy." Kazan was a rat who betrayed innocent people to save his own career, and never apologized for doing so. And his shameful ad certainly speaks volumes about Kazan's hubris.
While I recommend the whole book, here is the chapter on Kazan from Navasky's "Naming Names."
http://writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50...
Yes, and I'm sure Martin Scorcese simply "agreed" to create and narrate his own movie, "A Letter to Elia." It was a group effort by the people who admired and respected Kazan's work (which included De Niro and Scorcese) that got him recognized against all the left wing Hollywood opposition. It certainly is a conspiracy when you look at how Hollywood perpetuates the Strausberg myth at Elia Kazan's expense. Budd Shulberg and Elia Kazan have been wronged. Watch these videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watchv=o5P9QfI...
http://video.pbs.org/video/1947064818/
You are mistaken, Daniel. Ronald Reagan spoke before the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) in 1947. You can visit the link below. The source is identified as: Congress, House, Committee on Un-American Activities, Hearings Regarding the Communist Infiltration of the Motion Picture Industry, 80th Congress, 1st Session, October 23–24, 1947 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1947).http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6458
Behind the Scenes
Occasional postings about what I'm writing... or reading.
- Daniel M. Kimmel's profile
- 16 fans
