REDS UNDER THE BEDS

New Zealand Listener, Volume 17, Issue 437, 7 November 1947, Page 13

REDS UNDER THE BEDS

suffering a bad attack of the jitters. Reading the cables, one gains the impression that a large number of the most influential people in the movie colony ‘are convinced that Russia is already running the American .film industry. If one allows one’s imagination to go to the extremes that theirs apparently have, one can easily conjure up a picture of big producers, big | a. is currently piresuars, and big stars looking under ir beds for Reds before retiring, and pifering up prayers that Uncle Joe won’t get them while they sleep. While it is probable-and indeed would be strange if it were not sothat ‘the Communists have found themselves a corner in Hollywood and are up to their usual tricks, it is as well to try to get the present Red-scare in Hollywood in perspective. For getting things in perspective and into proportion is what Hollywood itself is constitutionally incapable of .doing. Everything that happens there, happens in the atmosphere of a three-ring circusa three-ring circus on which the white, glaring limelight of publicity beats incessantly and more glaringly than upon any other section of world society. To cater to the .sensation-loving appetites of the world-wide spectators of this circus, some 400 newspapermen, columnists and feature-writers are (it has been estimated) assigned to fulltime duty in Hollywood. Not only do they report anything that happens, but when there is nothing much worth reporting, they create something. So whether we are reading about a witch-hunt or a wedding, we should remember these magnifying-glass qualities of Hollywood. The members of the film capital think, talk, and act all the time in superlatives-in order to convince others, but mostly to convince _ themselves. The situation has been well described by Dr. Leo C. Rosten in his Carnegie-Rockefeller research book on the movie colony., Rosten says that Hollywood is basically no more "screwy" than other, but less conspicuous, parts of society. In other words, they are now looking for Reds under the beds in Arkansas, Michigan, Mississippi, and virtually every other place in the United States-America, says an observer, is at present in the erip of an hystetical witch-hunt "fantastic in its proportions’-but it is Hollywood we are hearing most about. For, says Rosten, Hollywood is 20th Century American civilisation’ writ large; it is "an index of our society and » our culture." The aberrations of this ~ culture are more conspicuous and more . dramatic in Hollywood than anywhere else: the values of modern society are extended to the strident and the unmistakable in Hollywood’s way of life A study of Hollywood casts the profile of contemporary society (particularly contemporary American society) into sharper relief. — x * N this connection, a recent crack in The New Yorker is of some relevance: ollywood, we are told, is in the hands

of the Communists. We thought it was in the hands of the psychiatrists," This gives point to the saying that Hollywood not only contains the most expensive collection of talent in the world, but it also contains the largest collection of neuroses. One of the reasons why Hollywood is particularly likely to go off the deep end whenever there is any sort of a Red scare-in fact when anything happens which seems to threaten the accepted system-is that there is absolutely no sense of security in Hollywood, either for individuals or for great commercial undertakings. The Academy Award winner of to-day can be the flop of to-morrow: huge investments can disappear almost overnight. Behind the surface optimism and enthusiasm of the movie business, says Rosten, there is all the time fear and insecurity-the fear’ that it can’t last. "Hollywood is afraid of its own shadow." ok % NOTHER point to remember when treading about the present Red threat to Hollywood, and American society, and the American way of life, is that it, hgs all happened several times before--and. Hollywood and American society have both survived-except, perhaps, that American society has become a little more prone to hysteria with each recurring attack and therefore more disturbing for the liberal to contemplate or experience. ‘This is not to say, of course, that there may not come a time when the Big Bad Wolf of Communism will actually and unmistakably appear: but if the outside world refuses at the moment to become unduly excited by the clamant protestations of some Hollywood luminaries that this time, yes this time, it really has happened, then Hollywood has only itself to blame. Up to 1934, the immortal wisecrack of Dorothy Parker that "the only ‘ism in which Hollywood believes is plagiarism" held good-and still does in ‘the main. But in 1934 something happened which shocked some workers in the movie industry out of their political apathy and into awareness of the highpressure methods which could be used by privileged and powerful groups. It was in this year that occurred the bitter contest for the governorship of California between a dull Republican candidate named Frank E. Merriam and the enfant terrible of the Democrats, Upton Sinclair. The story of Hollywood’s part in the campaign has. been told before (the full details are in Rosten’s book), but it is Particularly worth recalling at this time. Upton Sinclair gave Hollywood a really bad attack of the jitters; he was an outspoken witic of the industry; his tax programme threatened to hit the studios very hard; he was a reforming Socialist who in . "production for use, not profit"-and for a, while it really looked as if elect him. Big Business in Hollywood was at first panic-stricken, and then moved quickly into action. Randolph Hearst hurried home from a’ trip to Germany to throw his newspapers into (continued on next page)

HERESY HUNT IN HOLLYWOOD

(continued from previous page) the fight; Louis B. Mayer commanded the Hollywood sector. Up rose the despairing cry, "If Sinclair is elected, we shall be forced to move the entire film industry out of California,’ though (as Rosten records) the threat to leave California was followed by the construction of costly new sound stagesin California! Even more sinister was a campaign fund of half-a-million dollars for Merriam which the Hollywood executives raised-partly by assessing their highsalaried employees for a contribution of one day’s salary each! This was, of course, not put in the form of a crude demand. It was a "request"-but a request accompanied by delicacies of pressure and persuasion which made it plain that refusals would be inexpedient. Some stars and writers did stand out, but according to Rosten most of them paid one day’s salary into the Republican campaign-chest. a * %* BUT the main barrage in the anti-Sin-clair, anti-New Deal campaign was provided by a series of "fabricated newsreels of appalling crudity and immense effectiveness." Motion-pic-tures were taken of a "horde of disreputable vagrants in the act of crossing the ‘California border’" in order to dispossess the respectable and Godfearing citizens the moment Sinclair was elected. These movies were made on the streets of Los Angeles with cameras supplied by a major studio; the "anarchists" were actors on studio payrolls, dressed in false whiskers and dirty clothes and wearing sinister expressions. Other "newsreels," slightly more subtle, but equally effective, were noted by the New York Times as consisting of "interviews," in one of which a white-haired old woman in a rocking chair signified her intention of voting for Merriam lest she be dispossessed of "her little home, all she had left in this world"; while in the companion reel a "shaggy man with bristling Russian whiskers and a menacing look in his eye’ went on record as intending to vote for "Seenclair, because his system vorked vell in Russia, so vy can’t it vork here?" These "newsreels" were distributed free to theatre-owners and_ splashed over the screens of every city in the state. (Incidentally, says Rosten, the same sort of thing happens whenever the question of daylight-saving for California. becomes a_ political issue; the Californian movie houses show short "scare" films, because daylightsaving would give people more time in the evening for outdoor recreation, and would therefore reduce movie attendances!) Simult2neously with the release of the aanti-Sinclair films, the Los Angeles Evening Herald and Express, a Hearst newspaper, carried a large picture of a terrifying mob of young hoboes in front of a freight car apparently arriving in Los Angeles to launch the Upton Sinclair Revolution, Unfortunately, these members of the vanguard of the Red Terror were easily reccgnisable as Frankie Darrow, Dorothy Wilson, and other reasonably familiar

screen players. ‘The picture itself was a still photograph from a film called Wild Boys g the Road. + i ines unnecessary to add that these tactics were successful; Upton Sinclair was defeated and Merriam was elected Governor of California. With complete shamelessness, the Hollywood Reporter’ gloated editorially: "Never before in the history of the picture business has the screen been used-in direct support of a candidate. ... Maybe our business will now be pampered a bit, instead of being pushed around as it has been ever since it became big business." % ms Ess HE Sinclair-Merriam scandal is, perhaps, the most spectacular example available of Hollywood in the grip of political jitters, though the present witch-hunt shows signs of, reaching a new low, and though there have from time to time been such lurid manifestations as the organisation (in 1935) of the Hollywood Hussars, and _ Victor McLaglen’s predilection for fine horses, bright uniforms, and Fascist tactics, which came to head with his formation of a private regiment of Light Horse Cavalry. But Rosten and his researchworkers, having examined the frequent attempts to smear Hollywood with the taint of "Communism" by the Dies Com- mittee and other equally unsavoury organisations for "pure Americanism" and against radicalism, liberalism, and even trade unionism, have reached the conclusion that, while gome Hollywood .workers have occasionally been indiscreet and a few others have undoubtedly been Communists, the allegation of a Red Menace in the movie capital is to date entirely without foundation. Similarly, charges that certain films have contained "Communist influences" have almost invariably cancelled themselves out. For example, the Warner Bros. film Juarez, which Mr. Dies asserted contained "very effective propaganda" for Communism, was attacked by the Communists for a variety of other reasons. a ms * MONG the recent films’ which (according to News Review) the industry’s gossip-sheet, Hollywood Reporter, recently indicted for "fostering Communist propaganda" were Margie, a whimsical story of a school-girl in the *twenties; The Best Years of Our Lives, which shows ex-soldiers in a more fayourable light than stay-at-home civilians; and The Pride of the Marines, ‘which tells of a famous blinded war hero of Guadalcanal.. Since the lastnamed film was made in co-operation with the U.S. Marines, critics are saying that the Red tint must be pretty well camouflaged. Perhaps, however, it is not so much, what is shown in these films that is the menace, as what is left out. That priceless suggestion was made the other day to the U.S. House of Representatives’ Un-American Activities Committee by Sam Wood, the director. These dubious films, said Wood in evidence, "might keep out an important little bit showing the true American way of life, and you would not miss it." I wonder (continued on next page) 4

4 (continued from previous page) what he was referring to? Possibly none of the films contained scenes in a Park Avenue penthouse, possibly none of the characters were selfmade millionaires, or poor but virtuous. showgirls who became top-rank radio stars. Such omissions would clearly be serious. Mrs. Leila Rogers, redoubtable mother of Ginger, has been more specific. She told a preliminary investigating committee in California that she had prevented her daughter from uttering the words "Share-and_ share _ alike! That’s democracy!" as part of the dialogue of Tender Comrade. In the face of this dreadful indictment, the Screen Writers’ Guild merely pointed out meekly that if such words could not be used a film biography of Abraham Lincoln would scarcely be possible, because Lincoln made a few statements like that himself. For that matter, the New Testament would find it hard to get a clean sheet from the Hollywood heresy-hunters. _ These crusaders (and my authority is still News Review) are led by one Jack B. Tenney, who, before switching from Democrat to Republican, was himself branded as a Communist by the Dies Committee, and whose other chief claim to fame, or notoriety, is that he is a former dance band leader responsible for the song hit "Mexicali Rose." It would seem clear that the present full-dress probe into "Un-Americanism" in Hollywood by the House of Representatives’ Committee arises directly from the activities of Mr. Tenney and his allies. * a AMONG such activities was the gathering of preliminary evidence from Robert Taylor, who plaintively asserted that in 1944 he was forced to appear "against his patriotic judgment"

— in the film Song of Russia, which "favoured the Russian way of life." Now, this seems to me a _ highly important piece of evidence-but not for the reasons which prompted Taylor to offer it. Nothing, to my mind, could expose more completely the Hollywood Way of Life and the motives which guide it. At the time when Song of Russia, Mission to Moscow, North Star, and other similar films were produced, the course of the war had made public opinion in America sympathetic towards the Soviet; and in order to take advantage of this favourable situation, several of the studios turned an __ ideological somersault. From one extreme they went to another, whitewashing Russia for all they were worth. But present attempts to repudiate these so-called "pro-Russian" films would strongly suggest that they were guided by expediency rather than principle. After all, the form and flavour of these particular films was not the product of a little backroom "subversion" by a few Hollywood Reds; it was the result of a major policy decision at the top. Robert Taylor may find it difficult to explain this. However, there is equal reason to be annoyed with the attitude of the Communists (including the local variety) who, by uncritically hailing these "proRussian" pictures when they appeared, apparently gave Hollywood full credit for having seen the light (a Red. one), and who attacked as a_ reactionary villain anyone like myself who dared suggest that these were really not good pictures and that the film industry, in making them, was actuated less by love for the U.S.S.R. than by love for its own bank-account. Having written this, I shall probably now be unpopular with everybody-ex-cept, perhaps, with a few liberals, who don’t cut much ice these days, anyway.