Guilty or Not Innocent? - How Far Can it be Said That the Trails of the Hollywood Ten Were a Farce?

Introduction

"Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party?"[i] This is the question put to all the suspected communists that were called in front of the House on Un-American Activities Committee. The question may seem to have a simple yes or no answer but the implications could have meant prison. However, which answer gave the better future? Yes? Or was it no? Which would save the accused career? Which would send them to jail and on to an ever growing blacklist?

The House on Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) was led by J. Parnell Thomas and was set up to prove two things. Firstly, it wanted to show that the Screen Writer’s Guild had Communist members. And secondly, it wanted to show that these writers had the ability to “insert subversive propaganda into Hollywood films”[ii].

So who were the “Hollywood Ten”? By name they were Alvah Bessie, Herbert Biberman, Lester Cole, Edmund Dmytryk, Ring Larder Jr, John Howard Larson, Albert Maltz, Samuel Ornitz, Adrian Scot and Dalton Trumbo. All of these men were accused by the HUAC of being communist sympathizers and were sent to jail for a year for contempt of court as J. Parnell Thomas felt they did not answer the questions asked in a proper manner.[iii]

In this essay I will look at why the “Hollywood Ten” did not answer the questions in a simple yes/no manner and why the HUAC was asking the questions. Was it an attempt to clam down on communism in Hollywood films or was there a deeper intention.

“Answer Yes or No”

“Answer yes or no” was the demand from the bench of the HUAC when the accused fought against the questions put to them. However, which answer is the lesser of two evils? As shown in “The Hollywood Ten” [iv] neither answer was better than the other. If you answered “yes” then you would lose your job and face a jail sentence, along with demands to name others who were at the meetings. Answer “no”, and you were accused of perjury and threatened with professional witnesses who would testify against you, such as Whittaker Chambers. This was referred to by John Howard Lawson as “Government by Stoolpigeon”[v]. So through either answer, prison was your final destination. This was well summed up by Lester Cole when he said, “You’re dammed if you do, you’re dammed if you don’t”.[vi]

There is, however, another reply to the HUAC’s questions. This defense was given by the America Constitution and was the option used by each of the “Hollywood Ten”. This answer was to plead the first and fifth amendment of the American Constitution. The First Amendment gave all American citizens the right to freedom of speech and assembly whilst the Fifth Amendment allows the American Citizens the right to a secret ballot. This means an American court is unable to ask someone about their political leanings or personal beliefs. Both of these amendments are infringed by the HUAC questions and therefore do not have to be answered.

However, the third option also failed in keeping the defendants out of jail as they were arrested under J. Parnell Thomas’ command for contempt of court and sentenced to a year in jail. This was the actual charge which sent the ten to jail. Therefore, the HUAC was ignoring the rights given to the American people by the American Constitution.

As I have explained all three possible answers result in jail, so which answer was best? Which one helped you avoid jail? The answer would appear neither. To admit the charges would result in a loss of employment and a jail sentence, to deny the charges would result in a charge of perjury and to challenge the right to ask the questions led to a charge of contempt of court.

How, then, could you avoid jail? There was one way to avoid jail and the blacklist of the 1950’s. This was, as John Howard Lawson put it, “to become a government stoolpigeon”. This was to become a professional witness for the state, testifying against other people accused of being communist sympathizers. This was the option chosen by some of the people subpoenaed by the HUAC, for example Whittaker Chambers and Lloyd Bridges. However, this option still had an impact on the career of those who chose this path. By confessing against others to save their own backs “stoolpigeons” were extradited by the film community. This can be seen in the career of Lloyd Bridges who chose to become an FBI informant. Before his hearing in front of the HUAC Lloyd Bridges he was an actor with Columbia pictures. An illustration of his success would be the making of 30 films in which he stared between 1941 and 1942.[vii] However, after helping the FBI with their enquiries into various other Hollywood personnel Bridges was caused to star in various low-budget movies such as “The Limping Man" (1953), whereas had Bridges not helped the FBI it is fair to assume that he would have been blacklisted like the “Hollywood Ten” but after the fall of McCarthy it is likely he would have starred in higher quality movies.. This fall from grace for Bridges can be summed up in his appearance as the Deputy in “High Noon”[viii]. In this film the deputy worked as a spy, so to speak, for the sheriff. Is this a representation of how Bridges was viewed by Hollywood? A spy for the authorities? By cooperating with the FBI Bridges managed to avoid jail. However, this had a negative impact on his career. Lloyd Bridges is an example of how taking the option to clear your name may still damage your career because you may become resented by your peers, limiting the employment opportunities handed to you.. For this reason I would go as far to say that there was no answer that could be given to the HUAC which did not have negative effects.

Does this make the trials a farce?

What Was the Purpose of the HUAC Hearings?

Before we decide whether or not the HUAC hearings were a farce it is important for us first to decide what the purposes of the hearings were. Were they intended on finding communists inside the American film industry? Or were the hearings a means to entertain the media and about presenting an image of the American government?

It is possible that the purpose of the hearings is a straight forward as it appears. To hunt out communist sympathizers and that the hearings were only brought against those with which there was enough evidence to convict them. That would explain why neither a yes or no answer avoided a jail sentence.

However, the problem with this argument is the afore mentioned third answer to the HUAC’s questions. The American Constitution should have guaranteed all of the defendants their freedom under the First Amendment[ix]. However, this defense also ended in a jail sentence because the committee had you sent to jail for contempt of court.. Therefore I believe that there was more to the hearings then would seem at a first glance and I believe this is to do with the large amount of media attention. We can see from the original footage of the HUAC hearings that there was a large amount of media attention.[x] I think this is due to what was happening at the time of the hearings because at the beginning of the 1950’s America had just entered into the cold war against the Soviet Union. It is possible, as Paul J. Achter suggests[xi], that through the use of the media McCarthy was controlling the public’s impressions of the threat of communism. Through the use of the media McCarthy was able to show that communism was already in America and that it was a threat to the country. By doing this McCarthy was doing one of two things. One, he was causing the public to dislike communism and support the effort against its spread around the world. Also, he showed that the government as doing something to combat communism in America, gaining support for the administration.

This argument would then suggest that the hearings held by the HUAC were a media show rather than fair trials. If this is so the hearings can be seen as a farce because the hearings were not about who was or was not a communist. They were about illustrating that communism does exist. McCarthy was, to put it another way, causing the public to believe in the devil by showing that the devil exists. This would mean that the “Hollywood Ten” were the casualties of a media show which would cause them to lose their jobs and spend a year in jail[xii].

The final reason for the large media coverage of the HUAC hearings, one which is far more beneficial to Senator McCarthy. Through the wide coverage of the trials McCarthy was able to install fear into the American public. This fear is created by the illustration of communism on American soil. The fear is vital to the McCarthyism movement. Through this fear those who did not agree with the movement were too scared to openly oppose it. As everyone was too scared to oppose the movement Senator McCarthy and the HUAC hearings were able to dispense ‘justice’ on who ever they saw fit. This was commented on by Edward R. Murrow when he said that Senator McCarthy believes that “Anyone who criticizes or opposes Senator’s McCarthy’s methods must be a communist”[xiii]. This blanket policy used by McCarthy installed fear into the American public because everyone wanted to avoid the wrath of the HUAC hearings. The media coverage of the hearings helped install this fear due to the nationwide broadcasts. This gave McCarthy the ability to ‘name and shame’ people he believed to be communists to the entire country; this gave the accused no hiding place from the fallout caused from such an accusation[xiv].

Conclusion

Regardless of the answer given to the HUAC’s leading question all those who appeared at the hearings damaged their career. Be it through prison sentence or through the loss of respect from their peers. However, does this make the hearings a farce?

On the face of it the hearings do appear a farce. If the accused followed the instructions given by the chair of the committee, J. Parnell Thomas,[xv] and answer the questions in a “yes” or “no” style prison was always going to be their final destination. If they answered “yes”, they were admitting to being a communist and were, in accordance to Senator McCarthy’s claims, a security risk. They were put in prison as a matter of national safety. If they were to answer “no” to the questions, then they were sent to jail for perjury. If they, like the “Hollywood Ten” answered by referring to the American Constitution they were sent to jail for contempt of court. This makes the hearings a farce because no ‘justice’ was delivered.

However, this depends on what you see as the purpose of the HUAC hearings. If you see them as a trail meant to dispense ‘justice’ then the hearing was indeed a farce as the judge had passed sentence long before the court had convened. However, if you see them as a tool to gaining information about who may be involved in communist activities then the hearings may not be seen as a farce. If the hearings set out to gain insider information then they did succeed as people such as Whittaker Chambers and Lloyd Bridges gave in to the pressure heaped on them by the HUAC and became FBI informants.

The hearings may also not be seen as a farce if they were purely a media show to control the public’s view of communism and to portray it in such a way it is seen as the enemy of the state or to simply scare the public into submission. This does not make the hearings a farce because the hearings did spread fear throughout the American nation. Edward R. Murrow once said, in reference to the American people, “We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason.”[xvi] It is possible, and in my opinion probably, that the hearings were carried out as a mechanism, through the use of the media, to scare the American public to the extent of which they no longer questioned the decisions made by the board and Senator Joseph R McCarthy.

Therefore, for the reasons listed above, I do not believe that the trials of the “Hollywood Ten” because the hearings were not trials. They were a media show put on to influence public opinion of communism.

[i] Ronald Bergan The Guardian Saturday November 4, 2000 http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4086011,00.html
[ii] http://www.moderntimes.com/palace/huac.htm
[iii] The Hollywood Ten The Film Division of the Southern California Chapter, National Council of the Arts, Sciences and Professions 1950
[iv] See Above
[v] See Above
[vi] See Above
[vii] http://www.hollywood.com/celebs/fulldetail/id/199321
[viii] Fred Zinnemman High Noon 1952
[ix] http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html
[x] The Hollywood Ten The Film Division of the Southern California Chapter, National Council of the Arts, Sciences and Professions 1950
[xi] Paul J. Achter TV, technology, and McCarthyism: crafting the democratic renaissance in an age of fear Routledge 2004
[xii] See Above
[xiii] Edward R Murrow George Clooney Good Night, and Good Luck 2005
[xiv] Paul J. Achter TV, technology, and McCarthyism: crafting the democratic renaissance in an age of fear Routledge 2004
[xv] The Hollywood Ten The Film Division of the Southern California Chapter, National Council of the Arts, Sciences and Professions 1950
[xvi] Edward R Murrow http://quotations.home.worldnet.att.net/edwardrmurrow.html

Bibliography

Ronald Bergan ‘Ring Lardner Jr’ The Guardian Saturday November 4th 2000
www.moderntimes.com/Archive/Article/0,4273,4086011,00.html
The Hollywood Ten The Film Division of the Southern California Chapter, National Council of the Arts, Sciences and Professions 1950
www.hollywood.com/celebs/fulldetail/id/199321
Paul J. Achter TV, technology, and McCarthyism: crafting the democratic renaissance in an age of fear Routledge 2004
George Clooney Good Night, and Good Luck 2005
http://quotations.home.worldnet.att.net/edwardrmurrow.html
Paul Buhle and Dave Wagner ‘Radical Hollywood’ The New Press New York 2002
www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html