CIA changes "Animal Farm"
Marc
movie Animal Farm.
It turns out that the CIA bought the film rights from H.G.Wells widow. Then
they changed the ending.
You may recall that at the end of the book the Animals are disgusted with
the Farmer (Capitalist) and the Pigs (Communist). Its a "plaque on both
your houses" statement.
In the film the CIA changed the ending to make just the Pigs the enemy. The
same NY Times article said that the CIA had also influenced and produced
international art exhibitions.
What made me almost as mad was that the Times carried the story on the third
page of the Arts and Culture section instead of the front page.
I guess we can be glad that Hollywood didn't have there own way with it
there would have been a love interest and happy ending written into the
script.
Coplete article follows:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
March 18, 2000, Saturday
The Arts/Cultural Desk
How the C.I.A. Played Dirty Tricks With Culture
By LAURENCE ZUCKERMAN
Many people remember reading George Orwell's ''Animal Farm'' in high
school
or college, with its chilling finale in which the farm animals looked
back
and forth at the tyrannical pigs and the exploitative human farmers but
found it ''impossible to say which was which.''
That ending was altered in the 1955 animated version, which removed the
humans, leaving only the nasty pigs. Another example of Hollywood
butchering
great literature? Yes, but in this case the film's secret producer was
the
Central Intelligence Agency.
The C.I.A., it seems, was worried that the public might be too
influenced by
Orwell's pox-on-both-their-houses critique of the capitalist humans and
Communist pigs. So after his death in 1950, agents were dispatched (by
none
other than E. Howard Hunt, later of Watergate fame) to buy the film
rights
to ''Animal Farm'' from his widow to make its message more overtly
anti-Communist.
Rewriting the end of ''Animal Farm'' is just one example of the often
absurd
lengths to which the C.I.A. went, as recounted in a new book, ''The
Cultural
Cold War: The C.I.A. and the World of Arts and Letters'' (The New Press)
by
Frances Stonor Saunders, a British journalist. Published in Britain last
summer, the book will appear here next month.
Much of what Ms. Stonor Saunders writes about, including the C.I.A.'s
covert
sponsorship of the Paris-based Congress for Cultural Freedom and the
British
opinion magazine Encounter, was exposed in the late 1960's, generating a
wave of indignation. But by combing through archives and unpublished
manuscripts and interviewing several of the principal actors, Ms. Stonor
Saunders has uncovered many new details and gives the most comprehensive
account yet of the agency's activities between 1947 and 1967.
This picture of the C.I.A.'s secret war of ideas has cameo appearances
by
scores of intellectual celebrities like the critics Dwight Macdonald and
Lionel Trilling, the poets Ted Hughes and Derek Walcott and the
novelists
James Michener and Mary McCarthy, all of whom directly or indirectly
benefited from the C.I.A.'s largesse. There are also bundles of cash
that
were funneled through C.I.A. fronts and several hilarious schemes that
resemble a ''Spy vs. Spy'' cartoon more than a serious defense against
Communism. Traveling first class all the way, the C.I.A. and its
counterparts in other Western European nations sponsored art
exhibitions,
intellectual conferences, concerts and magazines to press their larger
anti-Soviet agenda. Ms. Stonor Saunders provides ample evidence, for
example, that the editors at Encounter and other agency-sponsored
magazines
were ordered not to publish articles directly critical of Washington's
foreign policy. She also shows how the C.I.A. bankrolled some of the
earliest exhibitions of Abstract Expressionist painting outside of the
United States to counter the Socialist Realism being advanced by Moscow.
In one memorable episode, the British Foreign Office subsidized the
distribution of 50,000 copies of ''Darkness at Noon,'' Arthur Koestler's
anti-Communist classic. But at the same time, the French Communist Party
ordered its operatives to buy up every copy of the book. Koestler
received a
windfall in royalties courtesy of his Communist adversaries.
As it turns out, ''Animal Farm'' was not the only instance of the
C.I.A.'s
dabbling in Hollywood. Ms. Stonor Saunders reports that one operative
who
was a producer and talent agent slipped affluent-looking
African-Americans
into several films as extras to try to counter Soviet criticism of the
American race problem.
The agency also changed the ending of the movie version of ''1984,''
disregarding Orwell's specific instructions that the story not be
altered.
In the book, the protagonist, Winston Smith, is entirely defeated by the
nightmarish totalitarian regime. In the very last line, Orwell writes of
Winston, ''He loved Big Brother.'' In the movie, Winston and his lover,
Julia, are gunned down after Winston defiantly shouts: ''Down with Big
Brother!''
Such changes came from the agency's obsession with snuffing out a notion
then popular among many European intellectuals: that East and West were
morally equivalent. But instead of illustrating the differences between
the
two competing systems by taking the high road, the agency justified its
covert activities by referring to the unethical tactics of the Soviets.
''If the other side can use ideas that are camouflaged as being local
rather
than Soviet-supported or -stimulated, then we ought to be able to use
ideas
camouflaged as local ideas,'' Tom Braden, who ran the C.I.A.'s covert
cultural division in the early 1950's, explained years later. (In one of
the
book's many amusing codas, Mr. Braden goes on in the 1980's to become
the
leftist foil to Patrick Buchanan on the CNN program ''Crossfire.'')
The cultural cold war began in postwar Europe, with the fraying of the
wartime alliance between Washington and Moscow. Officials in the West
believed they had to counter Soviet propaganda and undermine the wide
sympathy for Communism in France and Italy.
An odd alliance was struck between the C.I.A. leaders, most of them
wealthy
Ivy League veterans of the wartime Office of Strategic Services and a
corps
of largely Jewish ex-Communists who had broken with Moscow to become
virulently anti-Communist. Acting as intermediaries between the agency
and
the intellectual community were three colorful agents who included
Vladimir
Nabokov's much less talented cousin, Nicholas, a composer.
The C.I.A. recognized from the beginning that it could not openly
sponsor
artists and intellectuals in Europe because there was so much
anti-American
feeling there. Instead, it decided to woo intellectuals out of the
Soviet
orbit by secretly promoting a non-Communist left of democratic
socialists
disillusioned with Moscow.
Ms. Stonor Saunders describes how the C.I.A. cleverly skimmed hundreds
of
millions of dollars from the Marshall Plan to finance its activities,
funneling the money through fake philanthropies it created or real ones
like
the Ford Foundation.
''We couldn't spend it all,'' Gilbert Greenway, a former C.I.A. agent,
recalled. ''There were no limits, and nobody had to account for it. It
was
amazing.''
When some of the C.I.A.'s activities were exposed in the late 1960's,
many
artists and intellectuals claimed ignorance. But Ms. Stonor Saunders
makes a
strong case that several people, including the philosopher Isaiah Berlin
and
the poet Stephen Spender, who was co-editor of Encounter, knew about the
C.I.A.'s role.
''She has made it very difficult now to deny that some of these things
happened,'' said Norman Birnbaum, a professor at the Georgetown
University
Law School who was a university professor in Europe in the 1950's and
early
1960's. ''And she has placed a lot of people living and dead in
embarrassing
situations.''
Still unresolved is what impact the campaign had and whether it was
worth
it. Some of the participants, like Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., who was in
the
O.S.S. and knew about some of the C.I.A.'s cultural activities, argue
that
the agency's role was benign, even necessary. Compared with the coups
the
C.I.A. sponsored in Guatemala, Iran and elsewhere, he said, its support
of
the arts was some of its best work. ''It enabled people to publish what
they
already believed,'' he added. ''It didn't change anyone's course of
action
or thought.''
But Diana Josselson, whose husband, Michael, ran the Congress for
Cultural
Freedom, told Ms. Stonor Saunders that there were real human costs among
those around the world who innocently cooperated with the agency's front
organizations only to be tarred with a C.I.A. affiliation when the truth
came out. The author and other critics argue that by using government
money
covertly to promote such American ideals as democracy and freedom of
expression, the agency ultimately stepped on its own message.
''Obviously it was an error, and a rather serious error, to allow
intellectuals to be subsidized by the government,'' said Alan Brinkley,
a
history professor at Columbia University. ''And when it was revealed, it
did
undermine their credibility seriously.''
John Harkness
wrote:
>Did you guys see the article a few months ago in teh NY times about the 1955
>movie Animal Farm.
>It turns out that the CIA bought the film rights from H.G.Wells widow. Then
>they changed the ending.
A neat trick, as the novel was written by George Orwell.
John Harkness
Marc
correct.
"John Harkness" <j...@attcanada.ca> wrote in message
news:3b27ade0...@nntp.attcanada.ca...
Tom Cervo
> disregarding Orwell's specific instructions that the story not be
>altered.
> In the book, the protagonist, Winston Smith, is entirely defeated by the
> nightmarish totalitarian regime. In the very last line, Orwell writes of
> Winston, ''He loved Big Brother.'' In the movie, Winston and his lover,
> Julia, are gunned down after Winston defiantly shouts: ''Down with Big
> Brother!''
All right, it's been 40 years since I saw it, but I recall vividly the downer
ending of Edmund O'Brian shouting the praises of Big Brother at a seedy bar
after a victory announcement. Am I losing my mind?
FilmGene
ending of Edmund O'Brian shouting the praises of Big Brother at a seedy bar
after a victory announcement. Am I losing my mind?>>
I seem to recall that the film was shot with two endings. My 16mm print has the
downer ending.
Gene Stavis, School of Visual Arts - NYC
Matthew Patton
suspicion that most of the people being plagued by leftist intellectuals for
having cooperated, knowingly or not, w/CIA front operations were probably
already in the dog-house w/this crowd for their ideas anyway.
Marc <marc...@obongo.com> wrote in message
news:9g889s$105q$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
Eugene Kim
> <<All right, it's been 40 years since I saw it, but I recall vividly the downer
> ending of Edmund O'Brian shouting the praises of Big Brother at a seedy bar
> after a victory announcement. Am I losing my mind?>>
>
> I seem to recall that the film was shot with two endings. My 16mm print has the
> downer ending.
Er - you're both thinking of "1984," not "Animal Farm."
Will
> Er - you're both thinking of "1984," not "Animal Farm."
In a meandering thread typical of this group, we've been talking about
both films. In addition to politics, religion and the weather.
Daniel Miller
doing (I am assuming that the article alleging the CIA bought the
Animal Farm film rights and changed the ending for political purposes
is true). I certainly hope the CIA no longer has this kind of
unaccountable independence of action.
Animal Farm the book is such an incredible artistic work. I recall the
chilling allegories of propaganda and worker exploitation and class
oppression.
What will be edited next, the Bible?
Marc
"Matthew Patton" <mp...@bitstorm.net> wrote in message
news:kjWV6.212417$NK4.13...@news2.aus1.giganews.com...
> I'm not crazy about the CIA sponsoring cultural activities, but I have the
> suspicion that most of the people being plagued by leftist intellectuals
for
> having cooperated, knowingly or not, w/CIA front operations were probably
> already in the dog-house w/this crowd for their ideas anyway.
I think your off base on two accounts.
FIRST, we are not talking about people "cooperating with the CIA" in this
instance we are talking about the CIA perverting a important work of art to
deliberately mis-lead the American Public. Actually that is not the case.
Which, aside from the moral and ethical issues, is a craime in this country.
The CIA is not allowed to act within the United States or operate against
her Citicens.
SECOND, Although calling myself an intellectual would be undeserved
flattery. I did go to graduate School in Political Science. Since that
time it has been revealed that most of the Social Sciences in this country
were largely influenced and directed by illegal grants from the CIA in the
late 40s and early 50s. Most of us who have taken the time to inform
ourselves about this do not criticise those who took those grants. The
people who did so had a very different view of the world. They had narrowly
escaped the threat of Fascism and were now threatened by Stalinism. To them
the CIA was the good guys helping to save Democracy from Tyrany.
It is only since then that we have learned that they have assasinated
democraticaly elected leaders, sponsored, promoted and cooperated in
terroism, torture and drug trafficking.
Of course there are knee jerk leftists who don't care to make such
distinctions. Just as there are knee jerk rightists who will defend
anything their governmet does. But these are people who are much more
comfortable in Stalinist or Fascist countries.
ANIM8Rfsk
Uh
You don't actually believe that Bible there of yours is not an untranstlated,
unedited, factual account of some kind do you?
Daniel Miller
On 14 Jun 2001 16:38:03 GMT, anim...@aol.comNOSPAM (ANIM8Rfsk)
wrote:
ANIM8Rfsk
Heh, then they're the only ones that havent!
S D
is UFOs. For decades investigators pointed to government attempts to
distort and supress UFO stories. (coverups) Only recently has the truth
been revealed: various agencies gave the impression of impeading
investigations to deflect scrutiny from notice of air force tests of new
aircraft.
Roger D. White
do.>>
So, what else is new?
The question is, what are we to do about it?
~ Roger
Marc
1700 years.
Ever since the Council of Nicea. I highly recomed to you the Oxford
Encylopedia of the Bible. All 28 volumes which detail the various changes
and who implimented them.
By the way, the book, most Americans call the Bible was once called the
King James Version. It contained several books that were deleted by the
Puritans. Those books are often collected under the title the Apocrapha.
After the Puritans edited it Americans started calling it the "Authorized
Version"
"Daniel Miller" <DC...@USA.NET> wrote in message
news:3b28ce97...@news.CIS.DFN.DE...
Marc
them pay for a new version. Or return the rights to the Public Domain.
GREAT IDEA FOR A NEW THREAD.
Nominate the Studio, Producer, director, actors for the major parts, and who
will do the score.
Studio: Dream Works (of course)
Director: Spike Lee
Farmer: Dennis Hopper
Napoleon: John Goodman
Snowball: Eddy Murphy
Mollie: Ophra Winfrey
Squeeler: John Torturo
Peter Ustinov: absolutely to be the Old Major again
"Roger D. White" <ra...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:24883-3B...@storefull-618.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Dave Okonski
Marc <marc...@obongo.com> wrote in message
news:9g889s$105q$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
Marc
"Dave Okonski" <dave.o...@dlokons.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9gfju2$riq$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...