Hollywood’s statute of limitations

From Ronald Reagan’s 1947 HUAC testimony:

STRIPLING: Do you know whether the communists have participated in any way with this
strike?

REAGAN: Sir, the first time that this word “communist” was ever injected into any of the
meetings concerning the strike was at a meeting in Chicago with Mr. William Hutchinson,
president of the carpenters’ union, who were on strike at the time. He asked the Screen Actors
Guild to submit terms to Mr. (Richard) Walsh, and he told us to tell Mr. Walsh that, if he would
give in on these terms, he in turn would break run this Sorrell and the other commies out — I am
quoting him — and break it up. I might add that Mr. Walsh and Mr. Sorrell were running the
strike for Mr. Hutchinson in Hollywood.

STRIPLING: Mr. Reagan, what is your feeling about what steps should be taken to rid the
motion picture industry of any communist influences?

REAGAN: Well, sir, 99 percent of us are pretty well aware of what is going on, and I think,
within the bounds of our democratic rights and never once stepping over the rights given us by
democracy, we have done a pretty good job in our business of keeping those people’s activities
curtailed. After all, we must recognize them at present as a political party. On that basis we have
exposed their lies when we came across them, we have opposed their propaganda, and I can
certainly testify that in the case of the Screen Actors Guild we have been eminently successful in
preventing them from, with their usual tactics, trying to run a majority of an organization with a
well organized minority. In opposing those people, the best thing to do is make democracy
work. In the Screen Actors Guild we make it work by insuring everyone a vote and by keeping
everyone informed. I believe that, as Thomas Jefferson put it, if all the American people know
all of the facts they will never make a mistake. Whether the party should be outlawed, that is a
matter for the government to decide. As a citizen, I would hesitate to see any political party
outlawed on the basis of its political ideology. However, if it is proven that an organization is an
agent of foreign power, or in any way not a legitimate political party — and I think the
government is capable of proving that — then that is another matter. I happen to be very proud of
the industry in which I work; I happen to be very proud of the way in which we conducted the
fight. I do not believe the communists have ever at any time been able to use the motion picture
screen as a sounding board for their philosophy or ideology.

CHAIRMAN: There is one thing that you said that interested me very much. That was the
quotation from Jefferson. That is why this committee was created by the House of
Representatives: to acquaint the American people with the facts. Once the American people are
acquainted with the facts there is no question but what the American people will do the kind of
job that they want done: that is, to make America just as pure as we can possibly make it. We
want to thank you very much for coming here today.

REAGAN: Sir, I detest, I abhor their philosophy, but I detest more than that their tactics, which
are those of the fifth column, and are dishonest, but at the same time I never as a citizen want to
see our country become urged, by either fear or resentment of this group, that we ever
compromise with any of our democratic principles through that fear or resentment. I still think
that democracy can do it.

Noel on September 30, 2009 at 7:15 PM

And lastly, from Kazan’s ’52 HUAC testimony and FULL PAGE Times ad:

“…I did wrong to withhold these names before, because secrecy serves the Communists, and is exactly what they want.”

… I was instructed by the Communist unit to demand that the group be run “democratically.” This was a characteristic Communist tactic; they were not interested in democracy; they wanted control. They had no chance of controlling the directors, but they thought that if authority went to the actors, they would have a chance to dominate through the usual tricks of behind-the-scenes caucuses, block voting, and confusion of issues. This was the specific issue on which I quit the Party. I had enough regimentation, enough of being told what to think and say and do, enough of their habitual violation of the daily practices of democracy to which I was accustomed. The last straw came when I was invited to go through a typical Communist scene of crawling and apologizing and admitting the error of my ways…. I had had a taste of police-state living and I did not like it.

From the ad:

I got out in the spring of 1936.

The question will be asked why I did not tell this story sooner. I was held back, primarily, by concern for the reputations and employment of people who may, like myself, have left the Party many years ago.

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 them or expose them, because if you do you are attacking the right to hold unpopular opinions and you are joining the people who attack civil liberties.”

I have thought soberly about this. It is, simply, a lie.

Secrecy serves the Communists. At the other pole, it serves those who are interested in silencing liberal voices. The employment of a lot of good liberals is threatened because they have allowed themselves to become associated with or silenced by the Communists.

Liberals must speak out.

I think it is useful that certain of us had this kind of experience with the Communists, for if we had not we should not know them so well. Today, when all the world fears war and they scream peace, we know how much their professions are worth. We know tomorrow they will have a new slogan.

Firsthand experience of dictatorship and thought control left me with an abiding hatred of these. It left me with an abiding hatred of Communist philosophy and methods and the conviction that these must be resisted always. It also left me with the passionate conviction that 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, a free press, the rights of property, the rights of labor, racial equality and, above all, individual rights. I value these things. I take them seriously. I value peace, too, when it is not bought at the price of fundamental decencies. I believe these things must be fought for wherever they are not fully honored and protected whenever they are threatened.

The motion pictures I have made and the plays I have chosen to direct represent my convictions.

I expect to continue to make the same kinds of pictures and to direct the same kinds of plays.

Polanski’s not even in the same league.

Noel on September 30, 2009 at 7:36 PM