Review: Trumbo (2007)
Mark Leeper
(a film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: The story of Dalton Trumbo's career is told,
based on the play of the same name by Dalton's son,
Christopher Trumbo. The story is illuminated by
Trumbo's writings, particularly his correspondence
dramatically read by major actors of the film
industry. Actors recreate the moods of this always
tremendously well-spoken man. This may be the last
film to feature Trumbo's writing and it has some of
his most powerful prose. It is may be the best film
that has ever been made about the Hollywood
blacklist and the Hollywood Ten. Rating: low +3
(-4 to +4) or 8/10
The darkest chapter of the American entertainment industry was
the years of the Hollywood blacklist during the McCarthy era.
People accused of disloyalty to the government--usually for
actions that were completely within their Constitutional rights--
could not confront their accusers, but would suddenly find that
nobody would hire them. Careers were destroyed by innuendo.
Ten Hollywood screenwriters refused to cooperate with the House
Un-American Activities Committee's investigation into whether as
anonymously accused, there were Communist influences in the film
industry. In most cases this lack of cooperation was a refusal
to betray their friends and give names of people who could be
accused of being Communists. Unchecked the accusations would
have spread in a chain reaction. If each person accused gave the
names of two others the entire film industry could have been
consumed. Ten screenwriters refused to cooperate. These were
the Hollywood Ten.
One screenwriter among the ten was Dalton Trumbo. Before the
years of the blacklist he was a successful screenwriter with an
eloquent and powerful command of the English language. Like the
others of the Ten, he was sentenced to a year in prison on the
charge of contempt of Congress. When he was released he had
become an un-person as far as his Hollywood career was concerned.
Studios could not hire him for fear of being accused themselves
of hiring Communists. Trumbo could submit only very few scripts
he had written and then only under a pseudonym or by the use of a
front man whom Trumbo would allow to claim credit for Trumbo's
work. In 1956 a Trumbo script--submitted under the fictitious
name Robert Rich--was given an Academy Award that could not be
claimed. Then in 1960 two major films were released, SPARTACUS
and EXODUS, each written by Dalton Trumbo. The producers and
directors of these films risked the wrath of the American public
and gave Trumbo screen credit for his own work. It was an
extremely risky action. The decision to use Trumbo's name was
made by Kirk Douglas and Otto Preminger respectively of these two
films. When there was little fuss from the public. Hollywood
columnist Hedda Hopper was a notable exception calling SPARTACUS
"A story sold to Universal from a book written by a Commie
[Howard Fast], and the screen script was written by a Commie
[Dalton Trumbo], so don't go see it." When the public did go see
it it was generally acknowledged that the blacklist was dead.
Trumbo, Preminger, and especially Douglas had tested the waters
and demonstrated that the government hunt for supposed Communist
influences had lost the support of the American people.
The story of Trumbo is important and moving enough. But nine
major actors give dramatic readings to his correspondence: Joan
Allen, Brian Dennehy, Michael Douglas, Paul Giamatti, Nathan
Lane, Josh Lucas, Liam Neeson, David Strathairn, and Donald
Sutherland. In addition Kirk Douglas also talks about his
relationship with Trumbo and the history of the period. In
addition there are filmed interviews with Trumbo to fill in gaps
and interviews with family and friends still living.
The story covered by the film goes from Trumbo's career in the
1930s to his final acceptance back to public approval in 1960
(with a bit of a postscript in the 1970s). In the 1930s the
Communist Party seemed to be the only American party that had a
direct policy of opposing Fascism and confronting dictators.
During World War II, the Soviets were at least nominally
America's allies. But when the war was over the fear and hatred
of the Soviets turned into a vicious anti-Communist witch-hunt.
Some actors, afraid for their positions, willingly cooperated
with the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). The
first who did not cooperate were called the Unfriendly Ten.
Later they were re-dubbed the Hollywood Ten. The film follows
Trumbo through his time in prison and then to his self-exile to
Mexico to find work that he could not find the United States.
The actors dramatize his many moods reflected in his
correspondence including Paul Giamatti's very funny reading of a
letter from Dalton to son Christopher on the subject of
masturbation, a letter that probably ranks with Mark Twain's
1601. The film follows Trumbo through times when he was taking
any work he could get and when he returned by screenwriting, the
career he had promised himself he would never enter again. He
used fronts and pseudonyms to sell his scripts while hiding his
name. All of this is described with great eloquence in his
correspondence. It is also illustrated with scenes that he wrote
for the movies, which take on new meaning in the context of
Trumbo's life.
There is a certain continuity across the many actors who read his
words. They can be funny or sad or serious and heavy, but it is
the same voice behind them and the same carefully and powerfully
wrought prose. TRUMBO is among other things a lesson in how two
say volumes with an economy of words. As a sort of grand finale
the actors all share a reading with overlapping segments so each
can get a part of this one reading.
As admirable as TRUMBO is, and as powerful in his convictions,
Dalton Trumbo is not the hero of this story. Dalton Trumbo is a
man whose strong character was more important to himself than his
sense of self-preservation. By being a person of character he
knowingly (or mostly knowingly) allowed himself to be the victim
of dangerous political forces. The real hero of this film is Kirk
Douglas. He is present and speaking through stroke-slurred
speech, but he obviously wanted to participate. Another hero is
Otto Preminger who also credited Trumbo's work. These two men
risked losing heir careers to make a stand against the Hollywood
blacklist. TRUMBO is essentially the story of a rescue against
high odds. And more than just Trumbo's career was rescued.
Douglas and Preminger are the rescuers. This film concentrates on
why that rescue was necessary, why it had to be done, and why all
Americans are the beneficiaries of the rescue of one articulate
contrarian with a bushy moustache. I rate TRUMBO a low +3 on
the -4 to +4 scale or 8/10.
Kirk Douglas gives a good account of his part in the events in
his autobiography THE RAGMAN'S SON. The film TRUMBO gets its New
York City release on June 27.
Film Credits: <http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0889671/>
Mark R. Leeper
mle...@optonline.net
Copyright 2008 Mark R. Leeper
Mark Leeper
George Peatty
wrote:
> The darkest chapter of the American entertainment industry was
> the years of the Hollywood blacklist during the McCarthy era.
> People accused of disloyalty to the government--usually for
> actions that were completely within their Constitutional rights--
> could not confront their accusers, but would suddenly find that
> nobody would hire them. Careers were destroyed by innuendo.
[snip]
The story of HUAC is one of the blackest in all American history, but if
your review accurately summarizes the movie, then the movie doesn't tell the
whole story. HUAC was never about rooting out the Commies from the
entertainment industry. Sure, that was the public posturing. HUAC was
really about politics, and there was nothing special about these politics,
save perhaps the machinations were carried out more or less publicly. These
are garden variety dirty tricks of a type that go back to the very
beginnings of this country.
No, HUAC wasn't about Commies. HUAC was a purge .. a witch hunt.
HUAC was a systematic effort to purge Hollywood of Jews and minorities, and
all who sympathized / identified with them, not because they were Commies,
but because their politics as a group were much more liberal than the
politics of those who controlled Congress. It succeeded for so long,
because the country's politics were more attuned to Congress than the
entertainment media.
Kingo Gondo
"George Peatty" <peattyg...@copper.net> wrote in message
news:onlg44h1hs8ge340p...@4ax.com...
OK, who is impersonating George, badly?
tomcervo
> � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �TRUMBO
> � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Copyright 2008 Mark R. Leeper
(So nice you wrote it twice!)
One thing I'd be interested in knowing: Trumbo wrote his pacifist
classic "Johnny Got His Gun" in 1939, then withdrew it in the early
summer of 1941, coincident with a world event. When pacifists wrote
him to praise it and ask for its re-publication, Trumbo sent their
letter to the FBI with the request that they investigate these
subversives.
So, does someone get to read THAT letter?
RichA
God what pro-commie spin-doctoring.
Trumbo was a dirty commie from the get-go. The investigation into him
and others was perfectly justified.
Also, note, the "Vicious anti-Communist witch-hunt" PALED in
comparison to the 30-50 MILLION Stalin killed in his own country in
the name of communism. The commie FILTH who inhabited Hollywood should
not only have been investigated, they should have ALL been charged
with sedition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton_Trumbo
In the early 1940s, Trumbo wrote in the Daily Worker, the Communist
Party USA newspaper, that he had helped to keep various anti-Soviet
Union books from being turned into films, including two books by
Arthur Koestler, Darkness at Noon and The Yogi and the Commissar.[4]
Trumbo officially joined the Communist Party USA in 1943.[5]
Alric Knebel
"RichA" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6a5273ff-e6cd-4e3c...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> God what pro-commie spin-doctoring.
> Trumbo was a dirty commie from the get-go. The investigation into him
> and others was perfectly justified.
> Also, note, the "Vicious anti-Communist witch-hunt" PALED in
> comparison to the 30-50 MILLION Stalin killed in his own country in
> the name of communism. The commie FILTH who inhabited Hollywood should
> not only have been investigated, they should have ALL been charged
> with sedition.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton_Trumbo
> In the early 1940s, Trumbo wrote in the Daily Worker, the Communist
> Party USA newspaper, that he had helped to keep various anti-Soviet
> Union books from being turned into films, including two books by
> Arthur Koestler, Darkness at Noon and The Yogi and the Commissar.[4]
> Trumbo officially joined the Communist Party USA in 1943.[5]
So? It's not against the law to be a Communist. It never was. Communism
is an economic theory, and in many countries legitimate political parties
were formed and candidates placed on ballots, and it's a party that was
sometimes elected, and then voted out of office. What these congressional
hearings did was make it seem that these people were doing something
anti-American, conspiring with foreign agents and so on, and they were
mostly just pro-labor. All you had to do was have a social conscience, and
you fell under suspicion. An anti-war statement would do it. So, no, the
investigation wasn't justified, anymore than it would be justified in
investigating someone to discover if they're an atheist or a liberal or some
other conservatively despised ideology, and then blacklisting them for it.
Captialism is NOT constitutionally mandated and Communism isn't
constitutionally forbidden. Those people didn't break any laws.
Mark Leeper
> On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 08:44:39 -0700 (PDT), Mark Leeper <mlee...@optonline.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> No, HUAC wasn't about Commies. HUAC was a purge .. a witch hunt.
> HUAC was a systematic effort to purge Hollywood of Jews and minorities, and
> all who sympathized / identified with them, not because they were Commies,
> but because their politics as a group were much more liberal than the
> politics of those who controlled Congress. It succeeded for so long,
> because the country's politics were more attuned to Congress than the
> entertainment media.
George,
There is a difference between fact and interpretation. What you are
writing is interpretation. I tried to stick to facts in my review. I
lean toward agreeing with much of your interpretation but it had no
place in my review.
There definitely was anti-Jewish bigotry in the motives, but I
remember that being mentioned only once in the film. Of course the
real heroes were four Jews: Douglas, Kubrick, Preminger, and Newman
who all risked their careers to move against the blacklist. (By
Douglas's account Kubrick may not really belong on that list.)
--Mark
tomcervo
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hey, everybody, it's Rich.
Hi, Rich.
tomcervo
Four Jews and at least one prick--let's not get TOO sentimental here.
(Any time I start to get sentimental about Trumbo, I think of "A Guy
Named Joe", and "Always"--talk about the evil that men do . . .)
Kingo Gondo
"tomcervo" <tomc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:e127a5c5-2b09-495e...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 5, 11:48?am, Mark Leeper <mlee...@optonline.net> wrote:
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?TRUMBO
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? (a film review by Mark R. Leeper)
>
> ? ? ?CAPSULE: The story of Dalton Trumbo's career is told,
> ? ? ?based on the play of the same name by Dalton's son,
> ? ? ?Christopher Trumbo. ?The story is illuminated by
> ? ? ?Trumbo's writings, particularly his correspondence
> ? ? ?dramatically read by major actors of the film
> ? ? ?industry. ?Actors recreate the moods of this always
> ? ? ?tremendously well-spoken man. ?This may be the last
> ? ? ?film to feature Trumbo's writing and it has some of
> ? ? ?his most powerful prose. ?It is may be the best film
> ? ? ?that has ever been made about the Hollywood
> ? ? ?blacklist and the Hollywood Ten. ?Rating: low +3
> ? ? ?(-4 to +4) or 8/10
>
> ?The darkest chapter of the American entertainment industry was
> ?the years of the Hollywood blacklist during the McCarthy era.
> ?People accused of disloyalty to the government--usually for
> ?actions that were completely within their Constitutional rights--
> ?could not confront their accusers, but would suddenly find that
> ?nobody would hire them. ?Careers were destroyed by innuendo.
>
> ?Ten Hollywood screenwriters refused to cooperate with the House
> ?Un-American Activities Committee's investigation into whether as
> ?anonymously accused, there were Communist influences in the film
> ?industry. ?In most cases this lack of cooperation was a refusal
> ?to betray their friends and give names of people who could be
> ?accused of being Communists. ?Unchecked the accusations would
> ?have spread in a chain reaction. ?If each person accused gave the
> ?names of two others the entire film industry could have been
> ?consumed. ?Ten screenwriters refused to cooperate. ?These were
> ?the Hollywood Ten.
>
> ?One screenwriter among the ten was Dalton Trumbo. ?Before the
> ?years of the blacklist he was a successful screenwriter with an
> ?eloquent and powerful command of the English language. ?Like the
> ?others of the Ten, he was sentenced to a year in prison on the
> ?charge of contempt of Congress. ?When he was released he had
> ?become an un-person as far as his Hollywood career was concerned.
> ?Studios could not hire him for fear of being accused themselves
> ?of hiring Communists. ?Trumbo could submit only very few scripts
> ?he had written and then only under a pseudonym or by the use of a
> ?front man whom Trumbo would allow to claim credit for Trumbo's
> ?work. ?In 1956 a Trumbo script--submitted under the fictitious
> ?name Robert Rich--was given an Academy Award that could not be
> ?claimed. ?Then in 1960 two major films were released, SPARTACUS
> ?and EXODUS, each written by Dalton Trumbo. ?The producers and
> ?directors of these films risked the wrath of the American public
> ?and gave Trumbo screen credit for his own work. ?It was an
> ?extremely risky action. ?The decision to use Trumbo's name was
> ?made by Kirk Douglas and Otto Preminger respectively of these two
> ?films. ?When there was little fuss from the public. ?Hollywood
> ?columnist Hedda Hopper was a notable exception calling SPARTACUS
> ?"A story sold to Universal from a book written by a Commie
> ?[Howard Fast], and the screen script was written by a Commie
> ?[Dalton Trumbo], so don't go see it." ?When the public did go see
> ?it it was generally acknowledged that the blacklist was dead.
> ?Trumbo, Preminger, and especially Douglas had tested the waters
> ?and demonstrated that the government hunt for supposed Communist
> ?influences had lost the support of the American people.
>
> ?The story of Trumbo is important and moving enough. ?But nine
> ?major actors give dramatic readings to his correspondence: Joan
> ?Allen, Brian Dennehy, Michael Douglas, Paul Giamatti, Nathan
> ?Lane, Josh Lucas, Liam Neeson, David Strathairn, and Donald
> ?Sutherland. ?In addition Kirk Douglas also talks about his
> ?relationship with Trumbo and the history of the period. ?In
> ?addition there are filmed interviews with Trumbo to fill in gaps
> ?and interviews with family and friends still living.
>
> ?The story covered by the film goes from Trumbo's career in the
> ?1930s to his final acceptance back to public approval in 1960
> ?(with a bit of a postscript in the 1970s). ?In the 1930s the
> ?Communist Party seemed to be the only American party that had a
> ?direct policy of opposing Fascism and confronting dictators.
> ?During World War II, the Soviets were at least nominally
> ?America's allies. ?But when the war was over the fear and hatred
> ?of the Soviets turned into a vicious anti-Communist witch-hunt.
> ?Some actors, afraid for their positions, willingly cooperated
> ?with the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). ?The
> ?first who did not cooperate were called the Unfriendly Ten.
> ?Later they were re-dubbed the Hollywood Ten. ?The film follows
> ?Trumbo through his time in prison and then to his self-exile to
> ?Mexico to find work that he could not find the United States.
> ?The actors dramatize his many moods reflected in his
> ?correspondence including Paul Giamatti's very funny reading of a
> ?letter from Dalton to son Christopher on the subject of
> ?masturbation, a letter that probably ranks with Mark Twain's
> ?1601. ?The film follows Trumbo through times when he was taking
> ?any work he could get and when he returned by screenwriting, the
> ?career he had promised himself he would never enter again. ?He
> ?used fronts and pseudonyms to sell his scripts while hiding his
> ?name. ?All of this is described with great eloquence in his
> ?correspondence. ?It is also illustrated with scenes that he wrote
> ?for the movies, which take on new meaning in the context of
> ?Trumbo's life.
>
> ?There is a certain continuity across the many actors who read his
> ?words. ?They can be funny or sad or serious and heavy, but it is
> ?the same voice behind them and the same carefully and powerfully
> ?wrought prose. ?TRUMBO is among other things a lesson in how two
> ?say volumes with an economy of words. ?As a sort of grand finale
> ?the actors all share a reading with overlapping segments so each
> ?can get a part of this one reading.
>
> ?As admirable as TRUMBO is, and as powerful in his convictions,
> ?Dalton Trumbo is not the hero of this story. ?Dalton Trumbo is a
> ?man whose strong character was more important to himself than his
> ?sense of self-preservation. ?By being a person of character he
> ?knowingly (or mostly knowingly) allowed himself to be the victim
> ?of dangerous political forces. ?The real hero of this film is Kirk
> ?Douglas. ?He is present and speaking through stroke-slurred
> ?speech, but he obviously wanted to participate. ?Another hero is
> ?Otto Preminger who also credited Trumbo's work. ?These two men
> ?risked losing heir careers to make a stand against the Hollywood
> ?blacklist. ?TRUMBO is essentially the story of a rescue against
> ?high odds. ?And more than just Trumbo's career was rescued.
> ?Douglas and Preminger are the rescuers. ?This film concentrates on
> ?why that rescue was necessary, why it had to be done, and why all
> ?Americans are the beneficiaries of the rescue of one articulate
> ?contrarian with a bushy moustache. ?I rate TRUMBO a low +3 on
> ?the -4 to +4 scale or 8/10.
>
> ?Kirk Douglas gives a good account of his part in the events in
> ?his autobiography THE RAGMAN'S SON. ?The film TRUMBO gets its New
> ?York City release on June 27.
>
> ?Film Credits: <http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0889671/>
>
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Mark R. Leeper
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? mlee...@optonline.net
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Copyright 2008 Mark R. Leeper
(So nice you wrote it twice!)
One thing I'd be interested in knowing: Trumbo wrote his pacifist
classic "Johnny Got His Gun" in 1939, then withdrew it in the early
summer of 1941, coincident with a world event. When pacifists wrote
him to praise it and ask for its re-publication, Trumbo sent their
letter to the FBI with the request that they investigate these
subversives.
So, does someone get to read THAT letter?
Reply:
The odd thing (actually, not so odd) is that FDR would have agreed with him.
People like to imply that he was following Uncle Joe's line at the time--and
he may have been--but it really wasn't much different than Uncle Sam's line
at that point. It was a despicable thing to do regardless.
Kingo Gondo
"Alric Knebel" <al...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:nZOdneHuI-1-G9XV...@giganews.com...
I once read an interesting article on one of the less prominent scientists
who worked on the Manhattan project. He had a comment, which I paraphrase:
"For most people today, when they hear 'the bomb', Hiroshima is the first
thing they know. For us, it was the last thing we knew."
His point, of course, was that when they signed on the project, they thought
they were racing the Nazis to thing that would decide the outcome of the
war, and the fate of mankind, perhaps forever. They didn't know they were
developing a device to be used on the civilian population of a beaten nation
(please, argue the efficacy and morality of Hiroshima later and/or
elsewhere--that is not the issue today.)
In short, hindsight is 20/20--and often tries to act as if is 20/10.
It is plenty easy to dismiss anyone who ever affiliated themselves with
"Communism" as a dirty Commie (in fact, it is so easy, even Rich can do
it.). But try placing yourselves back in the 1930s and early 40s.
Capitalism, by any account, was in collapse, apparently brought on (largely)
by its own excesses (the real causes are more complicated, and only more
apparent in retrospect). It is hard to appreciate the psychological effect
of the Great Depression unless you were there, and we have seen nothing like
it since (our current economic troubles, for example, while quite real, are
the slightest trifle compare to those times).
People were looking for answers. Communism promised one. So did fascism.
Both rejected the status quo, which, frankly, seemed entirely worthy of
rejection from ground level back then.
Fascism made no bones about its core beliefs--it was blatantly premised on
anti-Semitism, racial hatred, the triumph of the strong over the weak, and
naked aggression. If you fell for fascism, it pretty much gave away the game
of what you were really like.
Communism was different--it preached racial equality and harmony (something
sorely lacking in the good ol' US of Jim Crow A back then), the universal
brotherhood of man, and egalitarianism. It was an intoxicating promise.
We now know it was utter horseshit. We know about the man-made famines, the
purges, the Gulag, etc. But then, the 1930s, much of this was unknown. Some
people SHOULD have known even if they actually did not know (Walter Duranty
comes to mind), but the average shmoe in the USA, including those in
Hollywood, did not.
Then, on top of all this, the top dog fascist nation, Nazi Germany, made war
on both the USSR and the USA within six months time. At every level,
citizens were urged to view the Communists in Russia as our dear allies
(and, as we know, there were several films, urged at the direction of our
government, made to press that point). This takes us up through 1945, at
least.
So the question, to me, is when should have fairly intelligent people of
good will, who were duped by the Communists, have gotten off the big red
bus?
The very first time I can even insist on was August 1939, when the
Soviet-Nazi non-aggression pact was signed. Yes, you can tell me about the
show trials prior to that, but it was possible to believe the Soviet line on
those events (famously parroted in Mission to Moscow). But the deal with the
Nazis, and the subsequent carve up of Poland and grab in the Balkans, should
have been a wake up call. (In one of the most astonishing sequences in film
history, an actor portraying Stalin in Mission to Moscow tries to justify
this, too--you just have to see it!)
But "true believers" of any stripe can be hard to dissuade--visit your local
church, synagogue or mosque this weekend and give it a try. A lot of people
ran through this stop sign and then the war was upon us, where, as I said
before, the Commies were urged to be viewed as our dear allies.
So, now we are up to 1946. To be even fairer, let's leave some accounting
for a post-war "hang-over". But by the time you get to the Berlin crisis of
1948, I don't know how you can't know the type of people with whom you have
been making cause. For me, personally, I cannot excuse Communist affiliation
after this point. There must be some deep character flaw to still be blind
to what Communism really was at this point (as opposed to any theory that
had been swallowed). And if you weren't blinded, you just were one of the
bad guys, period.
The upshot of all this is I really have a hard demonizing people, especially
those in their youth (who are prone to idealism), who cavorted with Commies
to any extent up into the late 40s. After then, though, there are really no
good excuses for such conduct.
And, by the way, by "Communism", I mean COMMUNISM--the reactionary swine who
ran the witch hunts had no interest in limited their attacks to genuine
Communists. They tried to demonize all kinds of people who saw the
now-undeniable flaws then inherent in the US (Jim Crow, e.g.) and wanted to
fix them. This, as much as anything, is what made the "red scare" period so
terrible.
RichA
> "RichA" <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6a5273ff-e6cd-4e3c...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > God what pro-commie spin-doctoring.
> > Trumbo was a dirty commie from the get-go. The investigation into him
> > and others was perfectly justified.
> > Also, note, the "Vicious anti-Communist witch-hunt" PALED in
> > comparison to the 30-50 MILLION Stalin killed in his own country in
> > the name of communism. The commie FILTH who inhabited Hollywood should
> > not only have been investigated, they should have ALL been charged
> > with sedition.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton_Trumbo
> > In the early 1940s, Trumbo wrote in the Daily Worker, the Communist
> > Party USA newspaper, that he had helped to keep various anti-Soviet
> > Union books from being turned into films, including two books by
> > Arthur Koestler, Darkness at Noon and The Yogi and the Commissar.[4]
> > Trumbo officially joined the Communist Party USA in 1943.[5]
>
> So? It's not against the law to be a Communist. It never was.
You're right. But my main point was that the review makes it seem
like he was some innocent dove. He was NOT.
All those Hollywood malcontents were trying to undermine the
democratic process. How stupid could they have been, thinking vicious
communism was some kind of panacea for the ills of the U.S. IMO, they
KNEW the horrors of communism and WANTED it to happen in the U.S.
because they all saw themselves as potential leaders in such a state.
Alric Knebel
"Kingo Gondo" <kingo_nos...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:VYCdnT3rIdMc1dTV...@earthlink.com...
>
> [edit] So, now we are up to 1946. To be even fairer, let's leave some
> Berlin crisis of 1948, I don't know how you can't know the type of people
> with whom you have been making cause. For me, personally, I cannot excuse
> Communist affiliation after this point. There must be some deep character
> flaw to still be blind to what Communism really was at this point (as
> opposed to any theory that had been swallowed). And if you weren't
> blinded, you just were one of the bad guys, period.
That's simply not true. Though much of what you say is true, it still
misses the glaring fact that the people in these hearings weren't interested
in what the Soviets were doing. It wouldn't have mattered if the Soviet's
had established a Communist paradise. The committe members were circling
the wagons against the idea of Communism itself, because Capitalism had
recently failed miserably and didn't recover without a bit of government
help, undeniable proof that Capitalism itself wasn't the pathway to social
justice either. Whatever the crimes the Soviets committed, the Soviet Union
didn't introduce the idea of Communism into history. The Soviets merely
practiced it very badly. So, for a person to remain a Communist shouldn't
have been conisidered a crime, because Communism itself shouldn't be
associated with the injustices of the Soviet state anymore than whatever
injustices committed under an officially prescribed Capitalist state should
taint the idea of Capitalism. And even better example: that the crimes
committed under the banner of Christianity shouldn't be a reflection on
Christianity itself.
> The upshot of all this is I really have a hard demonizing people,
> especially those in their youth (who are prone to idealism), who cavorted
> with Commies to any extent up into the late 40s. After then, though, there
> are really no good excuses for such conduct.
Sure there are. Communism itself is merely an idea. Because someone
practices it badly shouldn't taint that idea. The Europeans seemed to have
known this long before us, where to us "socialism" is still a trigger word,
and is somehow antithetical to "freedom."
> And, by the way, by "Communism", I mean COMMUNISM--the reactionary swine
> who ran the witch hunts had no interest in limited their attacks to
> genuine Communists. They tried to demonize all kinds of people who saw the
> now-undeniable flaws then inherent in the US (Jim Crow, e.g.) and wanted
> to fix them. This, as much as anything, is what made the "red scare"
> period so terrible.
That pretty much sums it up. You simply could NOT question anything going
on in the social order without them sniffing you out.
Alric Knebel
And that's your very basic misunderstanding. Communism isn't opposed to
democracy. It's opposed to Capitalism. You're mixing up the horrors of
Soviet totalitarianism as something intrinsic to Communism. Right now, we
have more people in prison than any other country on the planet. Does that
mean that Capitalism is the problem, or is it something else?
Kingo Gondo
This was delusional then, and it is even more astonishing now that you try
to propagate it at this very late date.
In 1948 there was no "Communism" outside of Soviet-back communism. Even the
Euro commies were utter tools of the Soviets. Every bit of post-Cold War
intelligence shows that US and Euro commies were virtually run by remore
control from Moscow. You are imagining a movement that did not exist.
Later, there were breakaway "Communisms", primarily for purely nationalist
reasons, although there was some doctrinal differences as well, but none of
them were essentially different in operation from Soviet-style communism
(i.e. tyrannical); some were plainly worse for its victims (China), others
moderately better (Yugoslavia). They were all awful, and should have shown
the futility of this doctrine to anyone interested in looking. Why you are
trying to excuse this now is utterly beyond belief. Communism has NEVER
shown itself to be anything but utterly flawed and horrorific.
George Peatty
wrote:
>There is a difference between fact and interpretation. What you are
>writing is interpretation. I tried to stick to facts in my review. I
>lean toward agreeing with much of your interpretation but it had no
>place in my review.
I understand, and by and large, I agree.
Alric Knebel
I don't really know which part you think is delusional. So I'll withhold my
kneejerk response to insult in return.
> In 1948 there was no "Communism" outside of Soviet-back communism. Even
> the Euro commies were utter tools of the Soviets. Every bit of post-Cold
> War intelligence shows that US and Euro commies were virtually run by
> remore control from Moscow. You are imagining a movement that did not
> exist.
Not everybody who supported the idea of Communism was a full-blown Communist
Party member beholden to the Soviet Union. What I said is true, that Europe
adopted a lot of progressive social values that can be found in Communism.
Australia had some sort of nationalized health care in the 1800s (if I
remember correctly). So in Europe, these ideas were familiar to them BEFORE
Russian Socialism, so those terms never became the trigger words they are
here. They have a more accurate idea of what's really going on, that there
are degrees to all of these leftist movements, and some practiced them
badly, some not so badly, and some are doing just fine with them. I was
watching the movie LUNA a couple of weeks ago on the Fox Movie Channel, and
at one point the woman is riding a taxi in Europe somewhere (not Eastern
Europe), and the driver knew she was an American. He told her he was a
Communist, and anticipated a typical American attitude about it. Your
tendency to mix up Communism with totalitarianism is typical.
> Later, there were breakaway "Communisms", primarily for purely nationalist
> reasons, although there was some doctrinal differences as well, but none
> of them were essentially different in operation from Soviet-style
> communism (i.e. tyrannical); some were plainly worse for its victims
> (China), others moderately better (Yugoslavia). They were all awful, and
> should have shown the futility of this doctrine to anyone interested in
> looking. Why you are trying to excuse this now is utterly beyond belief.
> Communism has NEVER shown itself to be anything but utterly flawed and
> horrorific.
This would be true if not for countries like modern France and Germany, with
their very strong labor protection laws, which is really what Communism was
after to begin with. And in those countries, despite their legally
protected labor force, there are in fact no gulags or torture chambers.
Now, you can draw all sorts of split-hair differences between what the
Soviets practiced and what Europe practices, but that's my point. The idea
of Communism and the variation on that theme is not discredited. When the
Soviet Union fell, Russian economists there didn't look to the US as a model
for captialism; they sought the European-flavored version of it, which is
richly seasoned with socialism. Most United States citizens are incapable
of comprehending what that means. Even the Russians understood -- as the
previous Pope did -- that you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
You seem to me to have that hair-trigger indoctrination against the idea
itself, because you seem unable to draw a distinction between those who
practice Communism (which, in fact, no one to date has practiced) badly and
the ideolgy itself. Such indoctrination makes any discussion difficult.
American Communists were not bad guys, ever. They were idealists. To
define Communism as totalitarian because a nation that proclaimed to
practice it happened to institute it with totalitarian ruthlessness is
purely propaganda, on the same level as when the Soviets used to cite Jim
Crow America as a failure of Captialism. It was not. But your stance is
exactly the same. EXACTLY.
Kingo Gondo
Split-hair differences? WTF are you talking about?
Sir, I have tried to address you on point, but you are plainly just fucking
nuts if you think "modern France and Germany" resemble anything out of The
Communist Manifesto.
>The idea of Communism and the variation on that theme is not discredited.
Alric, how have you reached this dead end?
>When the Soviet Union fell, Russian economists there didn't look to the US
>as a model for captialism; they sought the European-flavored version of it,
>which is richly seasoned with socialism.
Which failed, and so now they have gone to an autocratic, state-partenered
system that is essentially neo-fascist.
> Most United States citizens are incapable of comprehending what that
> means. Even the Russians understood -- as the previous Pope did -- that
> you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater. You seem to me to have
> that hair-trigger indoctrination against the idea itself, because you seem
> unable to draw a distinction between those who practice Communism (which,
> in fact, no one to date has practiced) badly and the ideolgy itself. Such
> indoctrination makes any discussion difficult.
OK, we are all brain-washed but you.
> American Communists were not bad guys, ever. They were idealists.
Trying reading the biographies of some of these people, even someone
"rehabitated" like Paul Robeson. He idolized Stalin even after Stalin's
death--a fucking mass murderer on a scale with Hitler. But he wasn't a bad
guy, I guess.
>To define Communism as totalitarian because a nation that proclaimed to
>practice it happened to institute it with totalitarian ruthlessness is
>purely propaganda, on the same level as when the Soviets used to cite Jim
>Crow America as a failure of Captialism. It was not. But your stance is
>exactly the same. EXACTLY.
Alric, I have a whole new appreciation of you.
TBerk
Dude.
I think you are (not exactly insane), er incorrect.
Really? They, the Hollywood directors and writers, and so on, they
wanted to overthrow our Democracy and institute a full on torture-fest
with themselves in a leading role?
How could your hate for one (or some) just lump up everybody like
that?
There is a phrase being run into the ground these days, 'Drinking the
Kool-Aid', if I have it right it means you have bought into the
propaganda, liken unto Jim Jones having his followers drink the
poisened purple grape drink becasue they were 'true belivers'.
"Rotten Commie Bastards" = BoogeyMan.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism>
Convenient to be on the winning team isn't it? My country, Right or
Wrong? How about those who get down in the dust w/ rolled up sleeves,
lay it on the line and work towards a better America? These are often
the guys you see getting a billy club to the head. Remember the images
of the fire-hoses being turned on Our Own Citizens? Oh, but they were
just malcontents after all.
Take a chance, open that iron tight grip on 'what is right!' a little
bit and see things from another's point of view. Try it, you'll not
get turned, nor loose your way home.
What good was served by the McCarthy Trials and subsequent Blacklist?
What calamity would have befallen us if they had not taken place?
TBerk
Derek Janssen
Um, <equally tactful pause>, fellow Dude:
I think RichA was making most of it up. Out of old fakey gags from
earlier threads that he wanted to make us think were "trademarks".
Because he couldn't think of anything *else* to say about Movie Opening
This Week to get his footprints in first, and wanted to canvas them
all, because he wasn't sure which one we WOULD be talking about on Monday.
(I repeat: RichA threads slap you in the face and DEFY you to think
they're real...
And if you don't, he'll still settle for camp giggles. He's not picky.)
Derek Janssen (basically, he's the the point now where he'll take
*anything* he can get)
eja...@verizon.net
Alric Knebel
God, you're fucking thick.
> Sir, I have tried to address you on point, but you are plainly just
> fucking nuts if you think "modern France and Germany" resemble anything
> out of The Communist Manifesto.
What the fuck is wrong with you? No, France and Germany has nothing the
resembles Soviet Russian. I'll give you that. And I'm not talking about
MARXISM.
>>The idea of Communism and the variation on that theme is not discredited.
>
> Alric, how have you reached this dead end?
Having trouble following me, are you?
>>When the Soviet Union fell, Russian economists there didn't look to the US
>>as a model for captialism; they sought the European-flavored version of
>>it, which is richly seasoned with socialism.
>
> Which failed, and so now they have gone to an autocratic, state-partenered
> system that is essentially neo-fascist.
But it didn't in Europe. So? Perhaps they didn't do it correctly.
Whatever. My point was, they didn't look to the United States for their
economic model. They didn't see Capitalism as the gateway to paradise.
>> Most United States citizens are incapable of comprehending what that
>> means. Even the Russians understood -- as the previous Pope did -- that
>> you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater. You seem to me to have
>> that hair-trigger indoctrination against the idea itself, because you
>> seem unable to draw a distinction between those who practice Communism
>> (which, in fact, no one to date has practiced) badly and the ideolgy
>> itself. Such indoctrination makes any discussion difficult.
>
> OK, we are all brain-washed but you.
You seem to be having a really hard time understanding what I'm saying.
Perhaps you're too brainwashed. What I said shouldn't have been difficult
to understand at all.
>> American Communists were not bad guys, ever. They were idealists.
>
> Trying reading the biographies of some of these people, even someone
> "rehabitated" like Paul Robeson. He idolized Stalin even after Stalin's
> death--a fucking mass murderer on a scale with Hitler. But he wasn't a bad
> guy, I guess.
He doesn't represent them ALL.
>>To define Communism as totalitarian because a nation that proclaimed to
>>practice it happened to institute it with totalitarian ruthlessness is
>>purely propaganda, on the same level as when the Soviets used to cite Jim
>>Crow America as a failure of Captialism. It was not. But your stance is
>>exactly the same. EXACTLY.
>
>
> Alric, I have a whole new appreciation of you.
What part of that didn't make sense? I thought it was so simple, even a
moron could understand it. Clearly I was giving you more credit that you
deserve, and I'd like to say I have a new appreciation for YOU, but I can't
say that.
RichA
It exposed the creeping communist menace to the American people.
Where there's smoke there is fire and too many Hollywoodites, writers,
etc., WERE active communists who would have (and did) support the
Soviet Union's crusade to take over the planet. Too bad it failed.
Kingo Gondo
We will bury you.
TBerk
> On Jun 6, 4:38 pm, TBerk <bayareab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > What good was served by the McCarthy Trials and subsequent Blacklist?
> > What calamity would have befallen us if they had not taken place?
>
> > TBerk
>
> It exposed the creeping communist menace to the American people.
> Where there's smoke there is fire and too many Hollywoodites, writers,
> etc., WERE active communists who would have (and did) support the
> Soviet Union's crusade to take over the planet. Too bad it failed.
Did you ever actually _know_ any Communist? I mean real people, not
show to you on TV or in the papers.
TBerk
I'm on the verge of quoting some Shakespeare,
never a good sign in a Usenet thread...
Alric Knebel
"Kingo Gondo" <kingo_nos...@gmail.org> wrote in message
news:NLydnVKnOZs3eNTV...@earthlink.com...
LOL! Good one.
RichA
> On Jun 6, 5:28 pm, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 6, 4:38 pm, TBerk <bayareab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > What good was served by the McCarthy Trials and subsequent Blacklist?
> > > What calamity would have befallen us if they had not taken place?
>
> > > TBerk
>
> > It exposed the creeping communist menace to the American people.
> > Where there's smoke there is fire and too many Hollywoodites, writers,
> > etc., WERE active communists who would have (and did) support the
> > Soviet Union's crusade to take over the planet. Too bad it failed.
>
> Did you ever actually _know_ any Communist? I mean real people, not
> show to you on TV or in the papers.
Only few. Including one Russian politico's kid in the 1980s who I had
some university classes with.
Most of the Russians in Canada kept quiet about communism, it was the
home-grown and pathetic stooges in the university commie clubs who
where the real bombasts.