How Hollywood Went to Washington (And Lost)
A dangerous silence envelopes the dark, drab courtroom. It is only punctuated with the hiss of an indecisive fluorescent lamp that seems to flirt with the idea of extinguishing itself completely. The lamp’s dim spectrum illuminates the pallid face of the plaintiff. His bespectacled eyes peer upwards from horn-rimmed glasses. Abruptly, a gruff voice pierces the quiet. It is a voice that wears impressive yet insipid suits. It is a voice that drinks black coffee and smokes generic cigarettes. When it speaks, it asks:
“Are you, or have you, ever been a member of the Communist Party?”
The little man in the chair, the pale plaintiff with the glasses, remains stoic and even the flickering fluorescent seems paralyzed with anticipation. Slowly, almost imperceptibly, his mouth opens and his throat issues a noise akin to a cough. The promise of words yet to be murmured falls from his lips. Then, the moment is gone. The mouth closes, the throat clears and there is silence once more, and with the last flicker of the indecisive lamp, there is also darkness.
The scene described above is a depiction of a typical day in court for one of the nineteen men on trial during the Hollywood Blacklist. The years following the second world war are often labeled as the “Golden Years” of the twentieth century. However, this was an era rife with fear and suspicion. Weary of the threat that the Communist Soviet Union posed for democracy, the United States government was eager to discover any hint of Soviet subterfuge. Therefore Communists became pariahs and this resulted in the active persecution of anyone who was suspected of Communist affiliation. This was exemplified in both the MccArthy hearings and the hearing...
... middle of paper ...
...rony” such as the “premature deaths and suicides” it caused and the “dull and sanctimonious films” it spawned.
It may seem hard to believe that Americans would allow such an undemocratic practice in this nation. Fortunately, today filmmakers are allowed to make movies about the subject of their choice without being evaluated for treason. However, the memory of this dark time will live forever. The sound of it echoes through the bowels of a courtroom and reverberates in the hearts of the American people. In the words of former first lady Eleanor Roosevelt, the only judge who decides whether the film industry is “good” or “bad” is the “man or woman who attends the movies”. It is the duty of an individual to evaluate a film and interpret art. The verdict is not reached in a courtroom; it is decided when ending credits appear on the screen.
However, after the dust settled, it was widely accepted that the blacklist was unjust, which enabled many film workers to pursue the movie studios in civil courts through the 1950’s for unpaid contracts and wages (Lewis, 2008). While the studios were initially impacted by the Paramount decision, the breadth of competition and independent successes of smaller studios gave rise to the advancement of innovative filmmaking that may not have been possible if it were not for the Paramount decision. Filmmaking is one of the riskiest and most profitable ventures in modern day society, and without these events, the studios and the film workers may not share the successes that they do
The courtroom is not used for finding out the truth. It is used for power and gaining riches. Jerome Facher, a defendant in the Woburn case for Grace, was good wi...
In the 1930s and 1940s many Hollywood writers, actors, producers, and directors were suspected for communist affiliations. During this time, communism was a popular political movement in the United States, especially among young liberals. There was a growing fear of communism invading American society. By the end of World War Two an event known as the Red Scare resulted in communism become increasingly feared and hated by many in the United States. The Hollywood blacklist caused the Hollywood industry a lot of harm in its business and reputation.
Nichols, John. ""Counbtering Censorship: Edgar Dale and the Film appreciation movement (critical essay)."." Cinema Jouranl. Fall 2006.
The incident exemplifies a pressing issue in the ever-topical discussion of the oft-vilified film rating classification system in our country. Is the movie rating system, originally designed to assist parents in guiding the movie-going habits of their children, actually preempting parental choice?
[1] Within the last few decades, we have generated a great number of “historical” films reaching the American public. With these “historical” films come the question of whether or not the film portrayed history in an accurate manner; if not, why were the facts manipulated the way that they were. Unfortunately, this question is usually answered in the negative, and the audience is left with a fictional account of a factual happening, thereby giving the viewing public mixed messages concerning the issues raised within the film. Film used in this manner can be a dangerous tool in the hands of powerful people with agendas and ulterior motives.
The MPAA rating system was once a good source for people to find out whether a movie would contain immoral or violent images; currently the system has grown to become ineffective in today’s society. Society changes as well as movies; content and subject matter has changed for movies of this generation. If the system is not changed it will not help parents to know what movies will be appropriate for their children to watch. Because of the influence and prevalence of movies in our society and culture today a rating system is important, if that system fails to do its duty the negative influence that the movies can have on the children and youth of tomorrow will be great.
Since the 1950s, most Americans have condemned the McCarthyite witch-hunts and show trials. By large majorities, Americans oppose firing communists from their jobs or banning communist speakers or books.[2] But over the past several years, increasing numbers of historians, writers and intellectuals have sought to minimize, explain away and justify McCarthyism. A spate of books and articles touting new historical evidence has tried to demonstrate that communism posed a real danger to American society in the 1940s and 1950s. They argue that even if some innocent people suffered and McCarthy was reckless, he was responding to a real threat.[3] As a result, Joe McCarthy doesn't look so irresponsible in hindsight.
... middle of paper ... ... Larry Ceplair and Englund stated in the book The Inquisition in Hollywood, “The destruction of the motion picture Left not only transformed the political atmosphere in Hollywood, but also adversely affected the kind of product which the studios turned out. “ In the early 20th century Hollywood reframed from producing politically controversial films in fear of becoming a target of McCarthy or the HUAC.
It is amazing that the movie industry started out so plain, either the film was accepted, or not. Therefore, how did they go from that to what it is today? In 1952, the U.S. Supreme court to step in to guarantee the film industry the right to freedom of speech. (Lucia, pg. 1) In the 1960’s, MPAA Chairman, Jack Valenti was faced with a few controversy films; where the filmmakers tested the limits that was once unacceptable. With the times changing, Jack knew he had to come up with something. Late 1968, the movie rating system was created; after reaching out to a couple of organization for feedback. All parties agreed to enforce the system to ensure the films was seen by the appropriate ages. (2011)
In Hollywood today, most films can be categorized according to the genre system. There are action films, horror flicks, Westerns, comedies and the likes. On a broader scope, films are often separated into two categories: Hollywood films, and independent or foreign ‘art house’ films. Yet, this outlook, albeit superficial, was how many viewed films. Celebrity-packed blockbusters filled with action and drama, with the use of seamless top-of-the-line digital editing and special effects were considered ‘Hollywood films’. Films where unconventional themes like existentialism or paranoia, often with excessive violence or sex or a combination of both, with obvious attempts to displace its audiences from the film were often attributed with the generic label of ‘foreign’ or ‘art house’ cinema.
In 192, an incident has happened, that changed the history of Hollywood, (FAMOUS COMEDIAN CHARGED WITH MURDER)1, that was a headline in one of the popular news paper at the time. What happened was that the comedian Fatty Arbuckle booked a suite at St. Francis Hotel during a drinking party then he have disappeared for a while in his room with model Virginia Rappe. Hours later the model was sick and went to hospital then she died there, so after that Solons have introduced about a hundred Bills in deferent states made to censor motion picture. So there was deferent rules in deferent states.for instance, women could not smoke on screen in Kansas but they could in Ohio .A pregnant woman couldn’t appear on-screen in Pennsylvania but could in New
Film and literature are two media forms that are so closely related, that we often forget there is a distinction between them. We often just view the movie as an extension of the book because most movies are based on novels or short stories. Because we are accustomed to this sequence of production, first the novel, then the motion picture, we often find ourselves making value judgments about a movie, based upon our feelings on the novel. It is this overlapping of the creative processes that prevents us from seeing movies as distinct and separate art forms from the novels they are based on.
The government in the novel is biased and fraudulent. The court system frequently treats its persecuted unjustly. Block the Tradesman is a principal example of a person being treated unfairly by the court system. Block has been under trial for more than five years. The trial takes up all of Block’s time and energy. He has five lawyers and he spends everyday in the lobby of the Law Court Offices. He used t...
Much like football and fresh apple pie, the cinema is an American pastime. It is rooted in the 20th century and has matured over the decades, mirroring the social and cultural growth of our nation. Compared to their precursors, contemporary films vary in content and target audience and convey a multitude of messages to viewers. But film would not demonstrate such variety without the cultural staple of our media, a constitutional right that is, in itself, an American pastime. Freedom of speech, as provided by the First Amendment, has fertilized the growth of cinema, and, in kind, the history of film has proven that free speech is easily applied to many media platforms, protective of controversial content, and accessible to all Americans, regardless of cultural background. The cinema is embedded in our nation’s history, driven by our passion for the motion picture and preserved by the inalienable rights provided by the First Amendment.