I hated this movie, for many reasons... - High Noon (1952) Discussion

[–] nh3nh4 15 years ago

you're one of those people in the church... get it now?

reply

[–] tarena02 15 years ago

You mean those cowards in the church? No thanks. I couldn't see that many people wanting to do nothing to save the life of someone so important to the town. Not just the church folk, how about those that were so happy for him as he's getting married? They suddenly don't care about him in less than 2 hours? Its just not believable. Even his new bride turns on him. Can you say annulment? Other than beating the show "24" by 49 years with the whole "real time" concept -which I did think was a pretty cool aspect of the movie, I can't think of many redeeming qualities. OK, one other, as Grace Kelly was always easy on the eyes.

reply

[–] raketex 15 years ago

"Grace Kelly was always easy on the eyes."

I thought she was pretty plain-looking in this film (and probably right in character with her Quaker beliefs). Katy Jurado as Helen Ramirez was the smokin' one in "High Noon," and with an attitude to match.

Now, Grace in "Rear Window" with those fabulous designer gowns, make-up, earrings, and especially that nifty "overnight briefcase," now THAT was a Grace easy on the eyes!...

reply

[–] HillieBoliday 15 years ago

And don't forget that very fabulous one of a kind pearl/charm bracelet she
wore in RW....I have coveted that bracelet for decades!!!

"OOO...I'M GON' TELL MAMA!"

reply

[–] rspnov 12 years ago

Before everybody gets into politics, which happens all to frequently on this site, it is worth noting that the characters played by Grace Kelly in both "High Noon" and "Rear Window" do not exist in the original short stories upon which the movies are based. How about primarily focusing comments on the films themselves rather than turning IMDb intoa political forum all the time (and, yes, I do recognize that movies have political subtexts)?

reply

[–] gchambers3-1 11 years ago

Rake,
You're spot-on on all assessments.

Katy Jurado...wow!

reply

[–] jokerman5000 14 years ago

Tail-Gunner Joe's monomania concerning communism was more than a little off the rails. He accused everyone who dared to take a stance with which he disagreed of being an evil, godless commie. Look up the name "George C. Marshall" -- only one of the most extraordinary soldiers and statesmen that the U.S. has ever produced, a man who was utterly apolitical and who gave his entire adult life to the service of the nation.

The '50s witch hunts, be they led by McCarthy in the Senate or HUAC in the House, overlooked one essential contextual point: The utter failure of capitalism that led to the Great Depression. The depths to which the American economy sank in the 1930s might reasonably lead one, at the time, to explore alternative economic theories. To pretend otherwise simply shows one's historical illiteracy. After all, there is a reason that it was said of FDR, "He saved capitalism from itself."

reply

[–] scipio23 12 years ago

Except that nothing FDR did got us out of the Depression. It kept right on going as he meddled with the economy. Even the war didn't end the depression, it just reduced unemployment because all the men went overseas to fight. And FDR couldn't save capitalism, since 1913 we had the Federal Reserve--no capitalism.

Je suis Marxiste, tendance Groucho

reply

[–] pinkfreudbluemahler 14 years ago

It's mind numbingly remarkable that there are "still" people in the 21st century who actually believe the HUAC was right. That said, the fact that reactionary great art, such as Picasso's "Guenrica", Renoir's "Rules of the Game" or Zinneman's "High Noon" are far more remembered than the petty oppressive types such as McCarthy & the HUAC.

Oh, there might have been actual communist sympathizers in Hollywood, such as Larry Parks, but they subscribed more to the theory of Marxism than the the Soviet brand of communism and Marx's theoretical communism, much like organized religion, was a sort of Utopia that simply did not work in practice, which hardly makes it evil, merely naive. As for that matter, the Acts of Luke describes a community that would certainly have been labeled "communist" in the paranoid 1950's red scare.

As far as "High Noon", time and history have proven it to be great art as it was a film which changed the western, which is one of the few great American art forms. Since then, newspaper story after newspaper story have documented similar stories of peoples who have stood by and witnessed a crime without lifting a finger to assist, thus proving Foreman's psychology of mass human behavior to be correct.

For a black and white 1952 western, "High Noon" still feels remarkably contemporary. Sadly, regressive posts such these further prove that, more often than not, some opinions simply do not count.

reply

[–] shinji_kusa 14 years ago

"...some opinions simply do not count."

True sign of a self-righteous liberal. There is only one way, all others are wrong and should be suppressed. And bringing religious people into this, calling them naive, very nice.

The acts of Luke have been interpreted in many ways by many people, yours is only one but again you believe it is the only one, the right one.

Plenty of news stories have also shown acts of heroism by individuals and entire communities, Foreman was no psychologist and neither are you.

reply

[–] pinkfreudbluemahler 14 years ago

I don't consider myself exclusively liberal or conservative and see the need for both, but there is a difference between a practical conservative and misguided, zealous patriotism.

As for religion, where do you get "bringing religious people into this?" There is a marked difference between a true spirit of religion and an organized, patriotic religiosity, the latter of which is usually evident in passionate criticism of this film and any expressed art critical of the status-quo.

The Acts of Luke as a whole can be interpreted many ways but the simple one line description of that early community, its set-up and practices, has much in common with some of the basic precepts of theoretical Marxism and that's a given when one simply can compare that element alone and that was the sole referral.

As for the news stories of heroism, sure there are instances of both, but it is when writers such as Foreman chose to home in on those instances of the less than noble masses,that the bullying began. Foreman certainly felt himself already under the gun of hysterical paranoia and chose to respond to being demonized.

When "High Noon" was released, Hollywood, which was once ruled by oppressive conservatives, acknowledged the power of the film's statement and perhaps there was a bit of penance there. Of course, there were still factions in Hollywood, such as John Wayne and Howard Hawks, who were mightily offended and saw to it that Foreman was blacklisted, destroying his life and career (Wayne even bragged about helping kick Foreman out of this 'glorious' country).

When our last commander in chief invaded Iraq, even a hint of dissent was met with vehement cries of traitor. Witness the way the Dixie Chicks were treated. Their records were destroyed, they were burned in effigy and this by the ignorance of the masses. Time has proven the Dixie Chicks were right, of course. When members of the previous administration went to the United Nations for a televised conference, they saw to it that Picasso's anti-war painting"Guernica" was covered and hidden.

Your statement that I endorse "suppression" is both inaccurate and a bit like accusing someone of being narrow-minded against narrow-mindedness, to which I would plead guilty especially when that narrow-mindedness is used against the power of great art, which is what "High Noon" is (and quite evidently what Guernica still is, retaining the power to get under the skin some 80 years after it was painted).

Some have said "If High noon is a statement against McCarthy, then which character is the Senator?" It is not a statement against Joseph McCarthy per say but against McCarthyism and it is the masses that empowered McCarthyism, just as it was the masses that refused to listen to and bullied anyone against that questioned the decisions of 2003. That's what "High Noon" was and is about; a perennial outsider, who thought he was accepted in the community, yet finds himself to be a maverick against that status-quo. This is the importance of the individual who does what he or she feels is right, even in the face of mass communal opposition (Beethoven wrote a little opera called 'Fidelio' with the same visionary theme, showing its been a much needed statement for quite some time, generation after generation desperately needing to hear it).

High Noon's star, the inimitable Gary Cooper, himself was a conservative, but he was not an extremist, and although he co-operated with the HUAC, he rightly defended Foreman, showing himself to be more like the torn and vulnerable Will Kane than he could probably have guessed.

As great a film as Hawks reactionary "Rio Bravo" is the heroine, Angie Dickenson, registers doe-eyed phoniness. Grace Kelly's Amy is a wave of contradictions and fallibility, who, in the end, does the right thing and her character has far more resonance.

Finally, your comment that Foreman was not a psychologist is a tad flimsy. The powers of observation are hardly relegated to psychologists, as a matter of fact, most artists of substance, such as Foreman brilliantly was, have it in spades. He certainly knew of what he wrote and sensed the impending call before the HUAC. That call came before High Noon was even finished shooting.

Absolutely the original poster has the right to express their reason for hatred of this film and what it represents, but there is equal room to call out that opinion as downright regressive and therefore lacking any real validity. I would say defenders of the HUAC have about as much validity in their arguments as Pro-Vietnam War opinions. Sadly, despite being made over 50 years ago, "High Noon" has proven to be a timeless film which still has the power to make some viewers uncomfortable, because regardless of technological advances, people are still the same and there really is nothing new under the sun.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] petrilloi 14 years ago

The characterization of Gary Cooper in this posting is inaccurate and misleading. He was hardly conservative, and his "defense" of Carl Foreman (before HUAC) was far from courageous under the circumstances. He appeared as a friendly witness and came off as distinctly less than heroic. You can actually see some of it in a documentary about the Hollywood Ten. He worked with Frank Capra twice in key ideological projects. (Mr. Deeds and Meet John Doe). Capra, was considered populist at best (hardly conservative). Cooper also had a deal pending to form a production company with Carl Foreman, as an aftermath of High Noon, which he later reneged on; (Foreman was then blacklisted). So based on these affiliations he must be considered, ideologically at least, mildly pink. He did do The Fountainhead, which is considered rabidly anti-communist. But neither he nor anyone else could really be said to make sense of Ayn Rand's overheated hysteria. A complete text of her incomprehensible HUAC testimony exists also. Rio Bravo, by the way, is considered a direct conservative response to High Noon. Hawks insisted on having lawman John Wayne REFUSE help from his friends (Ward Bond), as a direct rebuke to Will Kane who asks for help in High Noon. Finally, McCarthy didn't conduct HUAC hearings. The man's name was Emory Parnell. He ended up in jail for political corruption. Ex-con Frank Miller and his cronies would seem to represent the HUAC committee...

reply

[–] hobnob53 12 years ago

Sorry, petrilloi, but you're wrong on several points.

Gary Cooper most definitely was a conservative. He was a registered Republican. But he was a western-style (meaning the American mountain west), libertarian sort of conservative who disliked "witch-hunts" and holding people's political views against them. To call him "mildly pink" is both absurd and factually inaccurate. (Frank Capra seems to have been a populist, a broad and almost meaningless term, but so, off and on, was John Ford, and both men were registered Republicans.)

You're confused about when Cooper testified before HUAC. It was not during its second "investigation" into supposed Communists in Hollywood in 1951-52; it was during its initial foray in 1947-48. (That's the period in which the so-called "Hollywood Ten" were brought before the Committee.) The Committee assumed Cooper would name some names of supposed Reds, as his fellow actors Robert Taylor and Adolphe Menjou, both extreme right-wingers, happily did. But Cooper refused to name anyone, professing an innocence about others' political views and about politics in general, which disappointed the Committee enormously. Cooper never defended Foreman before HUAC because he never testified before the Committee in 1952. He did stick by him for as long as he could before the pressure became too great, which Foreman understood and always appreciated. Cooper didn't "renege" on his production deal with Foreman; it simply fell apart naturally after Foreman was blacklisted (not before) and had to move to England to work. Cooper was indeed taking a risk in defending Foreman, given the hysteria enveloping the film community at that time.

Finally, the chairman of HUAC you refer to was not "Emory Parnell". Emory Parnell was an actor (in films like Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House). The person you've mistaken him for is J. Parnell Thomas, a New Jersey Republican who chaired HUAC in 1947-48. Parnell was indeed indicted and convicted of payroll padding and sent to prison -- in fact, to Danbury, where he was incarcerated with two of the Hollywood Ten and even asked their help in getting paroled (!). Thomas eventually got out, ran for Congress again as a McCarthyite in 1954, lost the GOP primary overwhelmingly, and faded into obscurity until his death in 1961. In 1951-52, HUAC's chairman was a Democrat, though I don't recall now for certain who it was (perhaps Martin Dies of Texas?). But since the Democrats held the House at that time, its chairman would have been a Democrat.

However, you are of course quite correct in differentiating between McCarthy and HUAC. So many people, including supposedly informed writers, persist in inserting McCarthy into the HUAC/Hollywood investigations that it's maddening trying to correct such dolts. (This is almost the norm when dealing with foreign writers, but many Americans confuse the two as well.) A biography of John Garfield on TCM some years back had his daughter, the narrator, refer to "Senator Joe McCarthy and his House Un-American Activities Committee", a statement so self-evidently inaccurate that it's amazing how stupid she and the people who wrote the script were.

I share your dislike of HUAC, the blacklist, McCarthy and everything bad that flowed from them and the anti-Communist political hysteria of that era that they exploited -- and let's not forget this was mostly done for publicity, not out of genuine concern about the dangers of Communism. But let's keep the facts straight.

reply

[–] PrometheusTree64 11 years ago

So many people, including supposedly informed writers, persist in inserting McCarthy into the HUAC/Hollywood investigations that it's maddening trying to correct such dolts. (This is almost the norm when dealing with foreign writers, but many Americans confuse the two as well.) A biography of John Garfield on TCM some years back had his daughter, the narrator, refer to "Senator Joe McCarthy and his House Un-American Activities Committee", a statement so self-evidently inaccurate that it's amazing how stupid she and the people who wrote the script were.

I, too, have been guilty of using to the two references interchangably.

--

reply

[–] hobnob53 11 years ago

Well, don't fret about it too much, Prometheus, you're hardly alone. But Hollywood was about the one area McCarthy didn't investigate. HUAC had made it their private [witch-]hunting preserve in 1947, three years before Joe McCarthy jumped on the anti-Communist publicity bandwagon.

One major difference between HUAC and McCarthy is that, much as many of my fellow liberals are loath to admit it, while McCarthy's charges were almost all lies and distortions and he never did in fact uncover a single Communist, most of the Hollywood people whom HUAC "accused" of being Communists (or ex-) were, in fact, just that.

Back in the 1930s and into the 40s a lot of idealistic, intelligent but not very bright liberals decided that communism was the wave of the future and either joined the party or associated with front groups. Of course, this was not a crime and by the time HUAC got into it most of them had long since left the party and its affiliates, but that didn't stop HUAC or Parnell Thomas, who went after as many as they could find with glee. The first hearings in 1948 were the ones featuring the so-called "Hollywood Ten", nine writers and one director who either had been or still were Communist Party members. Several, like Ring Lardner and John Howard Lawson, were extreme Stalinists who devised the group's tactic of refusing to answer the Committee and obstructing it, while allowing genuine anti-Communist liberals to defend them until they realized they'd been duped. The Ten went to prison for contempt of Congress. The hearings of 1951-52 were the real killers, with the Committee dragooning hundreds of people before it and destroying or sidelining most of their careers, though almost all of them had merely flirted with Communism at a young age and long since renounced it, though they remained staunch liberals.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] brupey-1 14 years ago

Meaningless crap

reply

[–] raketex 14 years ago

"As for that matter, the Acts of Luke describes a community that would certainly have been labeled "communist" in the paranoid 1950's red scare."

If you're referring to the passage at Acts 4:32 of "sharing everything they had" and having "all things in common," I think the difference between that and what we commonly think of "communism" as an "evil" political ideology is that the situation depicted in Acts is one of VOLUNTARY participation.

What every political communistic system eventually finds to be its undoing is that people will always find the unfairness in the supposedly "fair" system. People come to the realization that it is a system of the lowest common denominator - if you are willing to work hard to make a better life for yourself, it won't happen. Anything extra you do is just taken and spread among the masses. That is the surest way to kill incentive.

That, and seeing freeloaders and the less-motivated around you not doing their "fair" share yet still getting the same benefits in return that you get. There simply is no real personal benefit (other than winning the "Comrade of the Month" award) for willing to put forth more effort than the next guy.

There is a natural sense of equity and justice within people - they had a good sense of what is "fair," and a communistic system that doesn't recognize individual effort with consequential individual rewards not only snuffs out incentive, innovation, and production but it also cripples the economic progress in that society and culture.

Now, this all is not to say that there are some grievous inequities and problems in a true fully unregulated free market capitalistic system, but at least you have the economic and political framework and structure to allow each person to realize his/her potential.

In general, you can't say that you are being held back by The Man, or by the System, or by whatever, if you have the access and ability to get an education, and work hard at whatever it is you want to do. Most people's failures in life or inability to live the life of their dreams are squarely rooted in their own abilities and actions.

The capitalistic system doesn't overtly single out certain individuals or demographics to restrict their economic opportunities. Sure, we all know there is still prejudice and discrimination out there, but how many people still rely on those race and gender cards to deflect and rationalize away personal responsibility and effort?

Americans who complain about our capitalistic system should go live in a communistic one for a while and then decide where they want to live the rest of their lives.

(I know you aren't specifically advocating a communistic society, but you just got me on a tear...)

reply

[–] DisneyKnight4 11 years ago

Your post is perfect. Spot on.

The difference between the believers in Acts and Communism is simply volunteerism. The early Christians are the closest the world will ever see to perfect Christians. They are the only group that could ever do a "Socialist" system.

Socialist in theory is beautiful. In reality, it is unsustainable.

Tangled up since 12/31/10

reply

[–] magicsinglez 14 years ago

To pretend that it has not been the left getting people fired from their jobs for what they believe, say, since the late 1950's, takes an active imagination. It's as if you have no eyes to see what has happened since the 1950's. Some opinions simply do not count? My, you make 'mccarthy' himself seem like a paragon of tolerance and a noble statesman. Apparently the bad-old-day of the 'petty repressive types' are here again?

One would have to suspect your ending was meant to be some kind of parody. Frankly, I'm not afraid enough of you; your awesome intellect, incontrovertable facts, or impressive name calling skill, to see it any other way. Good luck next time.

reply

[–] pinkfreudbluemahler 13 years ago

Oh please. Be honest. It may go against PC fads, but as the age of the internet has proven, one will not go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. Contrary to opinion, the masses are usually wrong. They were wrong during the dawn of the civil rights movement, they were wrong when they went to hangings for entertainment, when they went out in the desert to watch nuclear testing and on and on and on. So, no a lot of opinions, which are really sophistic assaults, simply do not count.

reply

[–] magicsinglez 13 years ago

hehe my opinion usually doesn't seem to account for much. . .

reply

[–] baran_erik 9 years ago

Add Disco to that list. lol

reply

[–] Lias 14 years ago

ok, this movie is weak for many reasons you mentioned.

That said, as far as the blacklisting thing..."most of those blacklisted were at the least sympathetic to communism."

Is this America or isn't it? Since when is "sympathy" illegal? We aren't talking about people who were spies. We aren't even talking about people who were card-carrying Reds - although THAT isn't illegal either, even today. We are talking about people who may have socialized with someone who went to one meeting of communists but never joined. Or someone who read a book by Marx.

I read a book by Hitler. Doesn't make me a Nazi. Having read it, I'm less of one that anybody. But in those days, they could make me lose my job because I read that book.

Or, I know two Mormons. Suppose when that farm got raided with the teen brides, they came and questioned ME because I happen to know two Mormons? I don't even know THOSE kind of Mormons, and I don't even hang out with the two I know, but back then? Just the fact that I spent any time with them would get me in dutch - if the witch hunt was about Mormons back then.

The blacklisting was the antithesis of what America stands for.

reply

[–] Traianus 14 years ago

Its just not realistic that a whole town would act that way. Its simply not human nature to do so, the film makers had it backwards.

I tend to think it's actually a pretty realistic portrayal of human nature. Oh, don't get me wrong, the scenario is absurd. Everyone's concerned about meeting Miller in the street with pistols, and even Kane leaves all those rifles on the wall. Even if it came down to just Kane, he could have waited up on a rooftop with a rifle and blown Miller and his bad buddies all to hell.

But all that's beside the point. You don't even have to get into all the 1950s Red Scare, HUAC, Hollywood Blacklists stuff. It's a simple story about the nature of human courage, duty, and self-interest. People tend to want their bread but often don't want to have to be the ones to bake it, know what I mean? Think of examples in your own life. Ever had a "fair-weather" friend? Ever have people in your life who act like your friend but then suddenly aren't there when you need them? People who talk a good game but take no real action? If you can answer "yes" to any of those, you should be able to relate to High Noon on some level.

If we insist on looking at the 1950s, look no further than President Truman, who liked to say "Friends don't count in fair weather; it is when troubles come that friends count." By the end of the movie, we see how rare real friends are, and we see who Kane's real friends are.

reply

[–] clutchkman 13 years ago

You were right on target with that response Traianus. That's how I saw it too. Caring about someone and treating them like a hero is a totally different thing than loading a gun and facing their enemies with them. Yikes! And Frank Miller and company were known as real bad dudes. Everyone who's watched this great movie has probably asked themselves if they would stand and fight with Kane or not, but we could never know the answer unless we face a similar situation, and I hope I never do! That's what's so great about this movie, (besides the performances) it doesn't even need the communism witchunt allegory to make you think and stir your emotions.

reply

[–] rmfenn-2 14 years ago

It's a MOVIE, people. It's not supposed to be realistic or accurate. It's supposed to entertain. And this HUAC and Iraq stuff is way, way off topic.

reply

[–] anghmho 13 years ago

I couldn't agree more. But, in addition to its being a movie, it's an allegory, isn't it? That invites political commentary, both from the enlightened and the other guys. It as always been so.

reply

[–] DisneyKnight4 11 years ago

rmefenn-2

I agree with the idea that movies don't have to be realistic or accurate. That being so, I hope you don't prefer The Dark Knight over Batman & Robin based on "realism"

Tangled up since 12/31/10

reply

[–] notorious_lightning 14 years ago

I don't understand the political significance of this movie, so this entire topic is a little over my head at the moment.. but I like a select few Westerns that I feel are above the rest and even quite possibly some of the greatest films of all time, and having just finished this, I believe it is indeed one of them. But some things in the OP's post have not been addressed, so I will have at it now.

As to the production itself, it was made on the cheap, and looks it. The gunfight at the end was terrible by western standards. And these outlaws come to town with a plan to kill the Marshall? Some plan, easily allowing one man to pick off each of them, one at a time."

Concerning the gunfight at the end, I thought that it was definitely above Western standards and even a bit realistic to an extent. He hid in buildings and kept himself in cover for the most part. Now, granted, the scene when he's riding the horse out of the burning barn displays some rather mediocre shots from supposedly dangerous men, but in the film's defense, he was as low as possible on the horse and the amount of horses rushing out at once might indeed cause some confusion. Also, the men's plan was probably very loose - I imagine they felt pretty confident to be facing one aging man alone, you know.

And for the record, I thought the production was awesome for 1952. The director injected style, the black and white was crisp and had excellent contrast, which I could definitely be attributed to the fact that it was shot in broad day light, in real time approaching high noon (which was very cool, and brought about a lot of suspense and dread as time runs thin, clocks on display being a constant reminder).

But the story is absurd. This man is supposed to be some kind of town hero, they give him a big sendoff after his wedding. Then they turn their back on him the very same day? Did he not know these people? Was he that clueless about them? Its just not realistic that a whole town would act that way. Its simply not human nature to do so, the film makers had it backwards.

I don't see how the story is absurd myself. The arguments and reasoning of the townspeople are laid out plain as day, and their respective opinions of the Marshall are quite varied as well. Their reluctance to help made perfect sense to me. And it is indeed in human nature to not want to die and to avoid conflict if it doesn't concern you directly. Cowardice is not exactly uncommon among men. And it's not as if they turned their backs on him exactly.. if I remember correctly, were not most of them urging him to leave and get out of town?

1.) His mentor is old, plagued with arthritis, and expresses his depressing outlook on the lawmen business quite clearly.

2.) The church-goers are not the type to bear arms and ultimately feel that it is either a suicide mission or, contrary to Kane's belief, actually bad for the town to confront the gang (remember, the last man to speak in the scene at the church cited Northern interest and how shooting would be bad for business and expansion). Also, they cited the fact that the

3.) His former deputy wanted a promotion to Marshall for risking his hide and probably had hard feelings over his girl's past with Kane, so his reasons for bailing are a no-brainer.

4.) The woman his just married is a quaker and murder is certainly against her beliefs, and having already lost family through guns, as it is revealed, once again, it is a NO-BRAINER as to why she'd threaten to leave him in the dust as she did.

I don't really think that I have much more to say.. I just hope that you might take in some of what I've typed and perhaps consider watching the film another time. I was extremely happy with it, and your complaints seem to be a bit invalid if you ask me. Had the writers and director slacked off, I would understand, but I felt that the dialog left few stones unturned. Cheers for reading.

reply

[–] cbalducc 11 years ago

I think it is wrong to interpret "High Noon" only as a story about heroic Hollywood people resisting HUAC and the blacklist without help from a craven America. The movie could be an allegory about the difficulties in resisting evil of any kind. The gunfighters could be Nazis, Communists, gangsters, or any other force that constitutes a threat. The fact that most of the "good" people in town are either too afraid to confront the threat or are willing to compromise with it for their own gain (such as the saloon owner) is a reality of the human condition. In that respect, "High Noon" may be considered one of the first "modern" movies to show a realistic view of human nature.

reply

[–] petrilloi 14 years ago

The blacklist, as it pertained to the movie business, was a complex and largely unfair enterprise. Insecure and craven people from a cutthroat industry were encouraged to "rat each other out" to save themselves. Any ideology that uses a pretext to persecute innocent people has severe credibility problems. Communism wasn't illegal when even the "guilty" ones were involved, yet they were destroyed twenty years later for misguided affiliations of their youth. Going after someone like Alger Hiss, who was in the State Department, was one thing. But does anyone really believe that movie actors like John Garfield, Mady Christians, or J. Edmund Bromberg, all of whom died shortly after being blacklisted, were threats to our way of life? The movies that were said to have "subversive" content look harmless, if not risible today. Yet lives and careers were ruined over them. Punishing people for their thoughts and beliefs is nothing but Fascism pure and simple. High Noon has a very strong subtext that relates to this, perhaps more than to any western plot. Carl Foreman, who wrote the picture, left the US afterwards to avoid HUAC. He claimed that Columbia Pictures and original producer Stanley Kramer abandoned the picture which was only finished and released (by United Artists) because of his efforts. It was an unexpected hit. A popular myth, about salvaging the film by re-editing it and adding Tex Ritter's song, was concocted to cover these cowards' asses. Gary Cooper got an Oscar as did editor Elmo Williams. The rest of the film was snubbed and Carl Foreman lost eleven years or so of his Hollywood career to the blacklist. The scene, early in the picture, with Otto Kruger (as a judge) fleeing for his life and advising Gary Cooper to do the same, represents the distillation of a conversation Foreman claimed to have had with Stanley Kramer, which allegedly ended with Kramer telling Foreman to drop the picture (as Columbia had) and leave the country. This was the impetus, Foreman said, for him to persevere and finish the picture...

reply

[–] Jessica_Rabbit69 14 years ago

"But the story is absurd. This man is supposed to be some kind of town hero, they give him a big sendoff after his wedding. Then they turn their back on him the very same day? Did he not know these people? Was he that clueless about them? Its just not realistic that a whole town would act that way. Its simply not human nature to do so, the film makers had it backwards."

My dear, I hope you don't have to grow up at some time, because there may be a rude awakening in store for you. Betraying other people is, sadly enough, too often human nature.
The story isn't absurd. Everybody's motives for the betrayal are made blatantly clear and what happens is all too common. Cowardice and self-interest, and in some cases just fear, very often win out.

I won't get sucked into the political debate here, there is just no use. But if the OP thinks McCarthy had nothing to do with the HUAC and everybody who was blacklisted was a communist, he/she has another think coming.
At that time especially friends turned on friends if it suited their careers. Many careers and lives were destroyed because a "friend" was pressured to testify before the HUAC.
And the same witch hunts happened during the W era.

Jessica Rabbit
"I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."

reply