9/17/02

LC020917-SP

VAL ZAVALA>> TONIGHT “HIGH NOON: ECHOES OF THE HOLLYWOOD BLACKLIST”.

JESS MARLOW>> STANLEY KRAMER WAS ONE OF HOLLYWOOD’S GREATEST FILMMAKERS FAMOUS FOR BRINGING CONTROVERSY TO THE SILVER SCREEN, NOW, FIFTY YEARS AFTER THE RELEASE OF “HIGH NOON” AND A YEAR AFTER KRAMER’S DEATH, THE MAN KNOWN AS THE SOCIALLY CONSCIOUS DIRECTOR IS IN THE MIDDLE OF ANOTHER CONTROVERSY.

VAL ZAVALA>> AND THE HOLLYWOOD BLACKLIST. IT DIDN’T JUST HAPPEN IN THE FIFTIES. THE FIGHT FOR SCREEN CREDIT CONTINUES TODAY. WE’LL FIND OUT WHY THE BLACKLIST CONTINUES TO SEND SHOCKWAVES THROUGH HOLLYWOOD AND WHETHER THAT CLIMATE OF FEAR AND SUPPRESSION COULD SURFACE AGAIN. IT’S ALL UP NEXT ON “HIGH NOON: ECHOES OF THE HOLLYWOOD BLACKLIST”.

GARY COOPER>> “THEY’RE MAKING ME RUN. I’VE NEVER RUN FROM ANYBODY BEFORE.”

[FILM CLIP]

VAL>> GOOD EVENING, I’M VAL ZAVALA.

JESS>> AND I’M JESS MARLOW. IT’S BEEN MORE THAN FIFTY YEARS SINCE THE HOUSE UNAMERICAN ACTIVITIES COMMITTEE TURNED THE SPOTLIGHT ON HOLLYWOOD. TOP DIRECTORS, PRODUCERS, WRITERS AND ACTORS WERE SINGLED OUT, CALLED BEFORE A COMMITTEE AND ASKED THAT DREADED QUESTION: “ARE YOU NOW OR HAVE YOU EVER BEEN A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY?” IT ENDED MANY CAREERS. IT RUINED MANY LIVES.

VAL>> THE DOCUMENTARY WHICH YOU JUST SAW, “DARKNESS AT HIGH NOON”, FOCUSES ON ONE CLASSIC FILM FROM THAT TIME AND, IN THIS PROGRAM, WE’LL BE FOCUSING ON SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THE DOCUMENTARY RAISES ABOUT “HIGH NOON” AND THE PEOPLE WHO MADE IT.

JESS>> ON ONE LEVEL, “DARKNESS AT HIGH NOON” IS ABOUT THE BLACKLIST AND HOW IT BROUGHT OUT THE WORST IN SOME PEOPLE. BUT THE DOCUMENTARY IS MOSTLY ABOUT HOW THE BLACKLIST MAY HAVE IMPACTED TWO GREAT FILMMAKERS, STANLEY KRAMER AND CARL FOREMAN, THE MAIN FORCES BEHIND “HIGH NOON”. DID THE BLACKLIST CAUSE THESE MEN TO SEVER THEIR CREATIVE PARTNERSHIP? AND DID IT ROB CARL FOREMAN OF THE CREDIT HE WAS DUE FOR “HIGH NOON”? WE BEGIN WITH A LOOK AT ONE OF THOSE FILM GIANTS, STANLEY KRAMER, WHO’S BEEN CALLED THE CONSCIENCE OF HOLLYWOOD. SAUL GONZALEZ HAS OUR STORY.

SAUL GONZALEZ>> THERE IS AN OLD SAYING IN HOLLYWOOD THAT GOES, “IF YOU WANT TO SEND A MESSAGE, CALL WESTERN UNION.” THE ADAGE REFLECTS THE FILM INDUSTRY’S FREQUENT RELUCTANCE TO TACKLE CONTROVERSIAL SUBJECTS IN THE MOVIES IT MAKES. THAT’S WHAT MAKES THE CAREER FILMMAKER, STANLEY KRAMER, SO EXCEPTIONAL. IN THE 1950’S AND 1960’S, KRAMER PRODUCED AN HONOR ROLL OF AMERICAN FILMS AND EXPLORED SOCIETY’S MOST SENSITIVE ISSUES. IT WAS CINEMA THAT ENCOURAGED AUDIENCES TO FACE REALITY, NOT ESCAPE FROM IT.

IN “GUESS WHO’S COMING TO DINNER” AND “THE DEFIANT ONES”, KRAMER EXAMINED THE JAGGED RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BLACKS AND WHITES IN AN AMERICA JUST EMERGING FROM SEGREGATION. IN “ON THE BEACH”, MADE IN THE DEPTHS OF THE COLD WAR, THE FILMMAKER IMAGINED THE LAST WHIMPERS OF CIVILIZATION AFTER A NUCLEAR WAR. IN “JUDGMENT AT NUREMBERG”, HE DISSECTED THE DARK SEDUCTIONS OF NAZISM AND ITS POLITICS OF TERROR. AND IN “INHERIT THE WIND” ABOUT THE SCOPE’S MONKEY TRIAL, KRAMER CHALLENGED RELIGIOUS DOGMA.

[FILM CLIP]

STEVEN SPIELBERG>> I THINK STANLEY KRAMER, YOU KNOW, INFLUENCED A WHOLE GENERATION OF FILMMAKERS. HE CERTAINLY HAD A GREAT IMPACT ON MYSELF. HE ALLOWED ALL OF US TO BE ABLE TO MAKE PICTURES THAT WERE ABOUT SOMETHING, THAT MIGHT HAVE SOME MEANING BEYOND THE MOTION PICTURE EXPERIENCE. HIS FILMS MAKE YOU THINK, THEY MAKE YOU WONDER, THEY’RE SCARY AND THEY MAKE YOU AWARE OF THE WORLD. I THINK FROM “JUDGMENT AT NUREMBERG”, “SHIP OF FOOLS”, YOU KNOW, HE WAS A GIFT TO ALL OF US AND HE HAS NO PEER. AS WE SIT HERE AND TALK ABOUT HIM TODAY, HE HAS NO PEER.

SAUL GONZALEZ>> ALTHOUGH SOME CRITICS THOUGHT KRAMER’S FILMS COULD BE TOO SELF-RIGHTEOUS AND HEAVY-HANDED, THE FILMMAKER RELISHED HIS REPUTATION AS A MAN WHO BROUGHT PROVOCATIVE STORIES TO THE BIG SCREEN. “I TRIED TO MAKE MOVIES THAT LASTED, ABOUT ISSUES THAT WOULD NOT GO AWAY”, HE TOLD ONE INTERVIEWER BEFORE HIS DEATH EARLY LAST YEAR. YET, LIKE WITH SO MANY OTHERS IN THE FILM INDUSTRY, THE MCCARTHYITE HUNT FOR COMMUNISTS IN POST-WAR HOLLYWOOD TESTED KRAMER’S IDEALS. WHETHER BLACKLISTED OR NOT, FEW PEOPLE WALKED AWAY FROM THE ERA UNSCATHED.

LARRY CEPLAIR>> IT SHATTERED RELATIONS. FIRST, THE MOST OBVIOUS ONE WAS BETWEEN THE INFORMERS AND THOSE WHO REFUSED TO COOPERATE. THOSE FRIENDSHIPS WERE OVER AND SOME PEOPLE WOULDN’T TALK TO OTHER PEOPLE FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS AFTERWARDS. OTHER TIMES, PEOPLE WOULD JUST SIMPLY SHUN THOSE WHO HAD TAKEN THE FIFTH AMENDMENT AND WERE BLACKLISTED. EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD LIKED THEM AND BEEN FRIENDS WITH THEM, TO ASSOCIATE WITH THEM WAS LIKE TYPHOID MARY. I THINK MOST PEOPLE ACTED OUT OF FEAR. I DON’T THINK THERE ARE MANY HEROES IN THIS STORY.

SAUL GONZALEZ>> SUPPORTERS AND CRITICS CAN ARGUE OVER HOW SKILLFULLY KRAMER WALKED AN ETHICAL TIGHTROPE DURING THE MCCARTHY ERA AS HE TRIED TO SAFEGUARD BOTH HIS POLITICAL CONVICTIONS AND PROFESSIONAL SUCCESS. HOWEVER, IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT KRAMER WAS INDISPENSABLE IN HELPING TO BREAK THE BACK OF THE BLACKLIST. HE DID IT BY BEING THE FIRST PROMINENT PRODUCER TO OPENLY HIRE AND CREDIT TWO SCREENWRITERS ON THE LIST. THEY PENNED HIS 1958 FILM, “THE DEFIANT ONES”, STARRING SIDNEY POITIER AND TONY CURTIS.

[FILM CLIP]

THE DOCUMENTARY, “DARKNESS AT HIGH NOON”, EXAMINES AN EARLIER EPISODE OF KRAMER’S CAREER, THE DISPUTE OVER WHO DESERVES CREDIT FOR THE MAKING OF THE CLASSIC WESTERN. WAS IT KRAMER OR BLACKLISTED SCREENWRITER, CARL FOREMAN. UCLA FILM SCHOOL PROFESSOR, HOWARD SUBER, WHO’S TAUGHT A GENERATION OF MOVIE PRODUCERS, SAYS HE DOESN’T HAVE THE DEFINITIVE ANSWER, BUT HE DOES SAY SUCH CONFLICTS OVER CREDIT IN HOLLYWOOD ARE LEGION.

HOWARD SUBER>> THERE’S NOTHING UNUSUAL IN THIS CONTROVERSY OVER THE WHO DESERVES THE CREDIT FOR THE CREATION OF “HIGH NOON”. I DON’T KNOW OF ANY FILM THAT’S GONE DOWN IN FILM HISTORY WHERE THERE HASN’T BEEN A CONTROVERSY OVER WHO DESERVES MORE CREDIT THAN WHOM. IT BECOMES IMPORTANT TO PEOPLE ECONOMICALLY. IT BECOMES IMPORTANT TO PEOPLE FROM THE STANDPOINT OF EGO, SELF-ESTEEM AND THE ESTEEM OF OTHERS TO BE KNOWN AS THE PERSON WHO CAME UP WITH SOMETHING --

SAUL GONZALEZ>> -- THAT’S WHEN THESE FEUDS ERUPT.

HOWARD SUBER>> THEN THE FEUDS ERUPT. NOBODY ARGUES OVER WHO CREATED THE TURKEYS. THE OTHER GUY DID IT, YOU KNOW. IT WASN’T MY IDEA. I DIDN’T WANT ANYTHING TO DO IT. WHEN THE FILM IS SUCCESSFUL AND, WHAT’S OFTEN TRUE, IS MANY PEOPLE ARE RIGHT. MANY PEOPLE DID HAVE IMPORTANT CREATIVE CONTRIBUTIONS. MANY PEOPLES’ CONTRIBUTIONS WERE SO IMPORTANT TO THE TOTAL WORK THAT, IF THEY HADN’T BEEN PRESENT, IT WOULDN’T HAVE BEEN THE WORK THAT NOW GOES DOWN IN FILM HISTORY.

SAUL GONZALEZ>> SO, MORE THAN HALF A CENTURY AFTER ITS PREMIERE, AND WITH NEARLY EVERYONE ASSOCIATED WITH THE MOVIE NOW GONE, THE DUEL OVER WHO REALLY CREATED THIS AMERICAN CLASSIC CONTINUES.

JESS>> WE’RE JOINED BY TWO PEOPLE WHO KNOW A LOT ABOUT STANLEY KRAMER AND CARL FOREMAN. LARRY SUID IS A FILM SCHOLAR. HE’S WORKING ON A BIOGRAPHY OF FRED ZINNEMAN, THE ACADEMY AWARD-NOMINATED DIRECTOR OF “HIGH NOON”. ALSO JOINING US IS ABBY MANN, A LEGENDARY WRITER-PRODUCER WHO WON AN OSCAR FOR “JUDGMENT AT NUREMBERG”, A STANLEY KRAMER FILM. WELCOME TO YOU BOTH. CARL FOREMAN AND STANLEY KRAMER WERE NOT ONLY COLLEAGUES, BUT THEY WERE ALSO FRIENDS. IT APPEARS AS THOUGH THAT CHANGED WITH THE CONTROVERSY OVER “HIGH NOON”.

ABBY MANN>> YOU KNOW, JESS, I’D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THAT AND PARTICULARLY ABOUT STANLEY KRAMER.

JESS>> WELL, YOU HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT YOU OWE YOUR CAREER TO STANLEY KRAMER, SO I’M GOING TO ASSUME YOU’RE A BIT BIASED (LAUGHTER).

ABBY MANN>> (LAUGHTER) WELL, THAT’S FOR SURE. AS A MATTER OF FACT, LOOKING AT THE DOCUMENTARY, I FOUND THE ANTITHESIS OF WHAT HE REALLY WAS.

LARRY SUID>> KRAMER DID SOME OF THE EDITING, OF COURSE, BUT FOREMAN AND ZINNEMAN WORKED ON THE SCRIPT AND CAME UP WITH THE FINAL SCRIPT. FRED ZINNEMAN WOULD NEVER MAKE A MOVIE UNTIL HE HAD A SCRIPT WITH WHICH HE WAS SATISFIED, SO IN THIS SENSE, THE FILM IS FOREMAN’S AND ZINNEMAN’S WITH KRAMER OVERSEEING THE PRODUCTION BACK IN THE STUDIO.

JESS>> HOW MUCH DID THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE BLACKLISTING AND HOW MUCH DID IT HAVE TO DO WITH PROFESSIONAL JEALOUSIES AND SEEKING CREDITS?

ABBY MANN>> WELL, YOU KNOW, I KNEW FOREMAN TOO AND HE WAS A NICE GUY.

JESS>> HE WAS A COMMUNIST?

ABBY MANN>> HE WAS A COMMUNIST AND, ACCORDING TO STANLEY, HE DENIED IT.

JESS>> WELL, DIDN’T STANLEY TRY TO GET HIM TO WRITE A LETTER INDICATING THAT HE WAS NOT A COMMUNIST?

ABBY MANN>> YEAH, HE WAS. BUT I REALLY WONDER -- I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THE KIND OF MAN THAT STANLEY WAS. NOW AS FAR AS --

JESS>> -- SO YOUR PREMISE IS THAT HE’S JUST TOO NICE A MAN TO HAVE DONE THE THINGS THAT THE DOCUMENTARY SUGGESTS HE DID?

ABBY MANN>> WELL, THE DOCUMENTARY DOESN’T SAY ONE GOOD WORD ABOUT HIM AND THE IMPORTANT THING, I THINK, IS THAT, YOU KNOW, HE BROKE THE BLACKLIST FINALLY BY HIRING A COUPLE OF GUYS THAT WORKED --

JESS>> -- AND YOU’D AGREE WITH THAT, WOULDN’T YOU, LARRY?

LARRY SUID>> YEAH, BUT THE DOCUMENTARY IS ABOUT CARL FOREMAN, NOT ABOUT STANLEY KRAMER. THE IDEA WAS TO SHOW HOW FOREMAN HAD WORKED ON THE FILM AND HOW, IN SOME MEASURE, HE PROTECTED FRED ZINNEMAN FROM THIS CONTROVERSY.

JESS>> BUT IN THE VIEW OF ABBY AND SOME OTHERS, IT MAKES STANLEY KRAMER A VILLAIN.

LARRY SUID>> WELL, IT DEPENDS ON HOW YOU LOOK AT THE EDITING AND THIS SORT OF THING. ZINNEMAN DID THE FIRST CUT, KRAMER DID THE SECOND CUT WHICH NO ONE FOUND ACCEPTABLE AND THEN ELMO WILLIAMS WORKED WITH ZINNEMAN TO COME UP WITH THE FINAL PRODUCT. BY THAT TIME, OF COURSE, FOREMAN HAD LEFT, BUT FOREMAN HAD BEEN ON THE SET AND HAD WORKED ON THE SCRIPT AND HE AND ZINNEMAN CAME UP WITH THE PORTRAYALS.

ABBY MANN>> I’D LIKE TO PUT THESE THINGS IN A PERSPECTIVE, IF WE MAY. YOU KNOW, WE’RE SUPPOSEDLY PUTTING “HIGH NOON” FOR WHAT POSTERITY MIGHT THINK OF IT. “HIGH NOON” WASN’T ALL OF KRAMER’S CAREER. IT WAS A CLIMAX OF FOREMAN’S. KRAMER NEVER TOOK IT OUT OF CONTEXT, BUT WHAT WAS TERRIBLY IMPORTANT ARE THE FILMS THAT HE DID LATER. JUST TO SHOW YOU THE COMPARISON OF THE TWO MEN, WHAT DID FOREMAN DO AFTER HE LEFT THE COMPANY? HE DID THINGS LIKE --

JESS>> -- LET’S ASK LARRY THAT BECAUSE LARRY WAS DISAGREEING WITH YOU ON THAT PART.

LARRY SUID>> THAT’S RIGHT. HE DID “THE VICTORS”, HE DID “GUNS OF NAVARONNE” AND HE HAD A CAREER AFTERWARDS. THIS WAS A TRAUMATIC EXPERIENCE IN HIS LIFE AND IT TOOK A WHILE TO RECOVER, OF COURSE. BUT HE CONTINUED TO PRODUCE FILMS, IN THE CASE OF “THE VICTORS”, TO DIRECT FILMS, SO HE DID HAVE A POST-“HIGH NOON” CAREER --

JESS>> -- MUST NOT HAVE BEEN BADLY DAMAGED BY LOSING CREDIT ON “HIGH NOON”.

ABBY MANN>> THAT’S RIGHT. LET’S LOOK AT THE FILMS. DO THE FILMS WE’RE TALKING ABOUT, INCLUDING “YOUNG WINSTON”, DID THEY DEAL WITH THE KIND OF ISSUES -- “ON THE BEACH” ABOUT THE BOMB, “A CHILD IS WAITING” ABOUT RETARDED CHILDREN, “GUESS WHO’S COMING TO DINNER” WHICH INTRODUCED AND MADE A GREAT AMERICAN ACTOR. BUT STANLEY KRAMER WAS THE MOST COURAGEOUS FILMMAKER OF OUR TIME AND WHAT BOTHERS ME --

JESS>> -- WOULD YOU DISAGREE WITH THAT, LARRY?

LARRY SUID>> YEAH, YOU’RE FORCING ME TO DISAGREE IN THE SENSE THAT AT THE END OF “HIGH NOON” --

JESS>> -- YOU DON’T SEEM TO BE RELUCTANT TO DO SO (LAUGHTER).

LARRY SUID>> AT THE END OF “ON THE BEACH”, WHICH IS SUPPOSEDLY A VERY PESSIMISTIC FILM ABOUT THE END OF MANKIND AND IT WAS DESCRIBED THAT WAY, THERE’S A BANNER “IT’S NOT OVER, BROTHER” OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT, SO HE COPS OUT A LITTLE BIT. HE WANTS TO GIVE HOPE AND, YOU KNOW, THAT SORT OF THING. IN “GUESS WHO’S COMING TO DINNER”, IT’S SUPPOSEDLY A GREAT BREAKTHROUGH FILM. BUT POITIER DOESN’T KISS HIS GIRLFRIEND AND, IF HE WAS REALLY A GROUNDBREAKING DIRECTOR, HE WOULD HAVE HAD THEM ACTUALLY KISS AND EMBRACE.

ABBY MANN>> I THINK IT’S PREPOSTEROUS. HERE WAS A FILM ABOUT A BLACK MAN AND A WHITE WOMAN. IT BROKE EVERY TABOO AND, YOU KNOW, TO PICK ON --

JESS>> -- AND IT WAS A GREAT BOX OFFICE SUCCESS.

ABBY MANN>> IT WAS A GREAT BOX OFFICE SUCCESS AND THE MAKING OF POITIER. IT WAS NEVER DONE BEFORE. WHO CARES WHETHER HE KISSED HER. AND THE OTHER THING ABOUT “HIGH NOON” IS, IT’S NOT “HAMLET”. IT’S NOT EVEN “CITIZEN KANE”. BUT WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS THAT EVERY TIME OUT, HE WENT FOR THE BIG PICTURE. WHY I’M HERE IS BECAUSE THIS DOCUMENTARY IS A LIE.

JESS>> IS IT YOUR JUDGMENT THAT STANLEY KRAMER CAVED IN TO THE HOUSE UNAMERICAN ACTIVITIES COMMITTEE?

LARRY SUID>> I DON’T KNOW SO MUCH ABOUT THAT, BUT HE DID CAVE IN TO THE NAVY WHEN HE WANTED COOPERATION ON “THE CAINE MUTINY” AND HE ADMITTED IT LATER THAT HE WISHED HE HADN’T. BUT IT SEEMS TO ME HE IS SOMEWHAT OF AN OPPORTUNIST AND HE CERTAINLY WAS TRYING TO PROTECT HIS NAME. HE TRIED TO STAY AWAY FROM “HIGH NOON” UNTIL IT WAS A SUCCESS. HE DID NOT LIKE IT, HE DID NOT LIKE ZINNEMAN’S FIRST CUT. ONCE FOREMAN IS GONE, ONCE THE FILM STARTS TO BE PRAISED, THEN HE COMES IN AND TAKES ALL CREDIT FOR IT.

ABBY MANN>> BUT ZINNEMAN PRAISED KRAMER. HE PRAISED HIM HIGHLY. HE SAID HE COULDN’T HAVE DONE THE FILM WITHOUT KRAMER, THAT KRAMER WAS WORKING ON IT FROM THE BEGINNING.

JESS>> IT SOUNDS AS THOUGH YOU HAD THREE GREAT TALENTS INVOLVED HERE.

ABBY MANN>> RIGHT. BUT I THINK IS ALL -- IF I MAY SAY SO, THERE ARE SOME BIGGER ISSUES THAT ARE SO MUCH MORE IMPORTANT. WHY WAS THIS THING DONE? TO HURT KRAMER? I MEAN, YOU KNOW --

JESS>> -- PERHAPS TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT?

LARRY SUID>> YEAH, IT’S A LEGITIMATE, ACCURATE, OBJECTIVE DOCUMENTARY --

ABBY MANN>> -- IT’S NOT --

LARRY SUID>> -- YES, IT IS.

ABBY MANN>> I MUST SAY, LARRY, IT’S ONE THING YOU NEVER KNEW KRAMER. YOU NEVER KNEW FOREMAN.

LARRY SUID>> I INTERVIEWED HIM AND I INTERVIEWED FOREMAN, SO --

ABBY MANN>> -- WELL, I MEAN, HE WAS ONE OF MY CLOSEST FRIENDS.

JESS>> ON THAT DISAGREEMENT, MR. SUID, MR. MANN, THANK YOU BOTH FOR JOINING US.

VAL>> NEXT, A LOOK AT THE HOLLYWOOD BLACKLIST. WE’LL TALK TO A BLACKLISTED SCREENPLAY WRITER AND A HOLLYWOOD JOURNALIST.

[FILM CLIP]

JESS>> FEW PEOPLE TODAY UNDERSTAND WHAT IT MEANT TO HAVE YOUR NAME ON THE HOLLYWOOD BLACKLIST.

VAL>> FROM THE LATE 1940’S TO THE EARLY 1960’S, THE ABILITY TO GET A JOB IN HOLLYWOOD DEPENDED ON WHETHER YOUR NAME WAS ON THAT LIST OF SUSPECTED COMMUNIST ACTIVISTS OR SYMPATHIZERS.

JESS>> WHILE THE MOVEMENT WAS LAUNCHED BY CONGRESS, IT WAS MOVIE EXECUTIVES WHO PUT TOGETHER AND ENFORCED THE BLACKLIST. THOUSANDS IN THE MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY LOST THEIR JOBS, DOZENS WERE JAILED, SOME FINALLY LEFT THE COUNTRY.

VAL>> JOINING US TO TALK ABOUT THAT ERA IS WRITER, BERNARD GORDON, WHO WAS ON THAT FAMOUS BLACKLIST. HIS WRITING CREDITS INCLUDE “55 DAYS AT PEKING” AND “THE THIN RED LINE”. IN 1999, MR. GORDON LED THE PROTEST WHEN THE MOTION PICTURE ACADEMY GAVE AN HONORARY OSCAR TO DIRECTOR, ILIA KAZAN, SOMEONE WHO NAMED NAMES DURING THE BLACKLIST ERA.

JESS>> ALSO HERE IS DAVID ROBB, A FORMER WRITER FOR THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER AND VARIETY. HE HAS WRITTEN NUMEROUS ARTICLES ON THE HOLLYWOOD BLACKLIST. GENTLEMEN, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. WHAT WAS IT LIKE BEING ON THAT LIST?

BERNARD GORDON>> TERRIBLE (LAUGHTER). WELL, I WAS ACTUALLY A YOUNG SCREENWRITER. I CAME ON LATE BECAUSE I’D BEEN A MEMBER OF THE STORY DEPARTMENT AT PARAMOUNT UNTIL 1947 WHEN I WAS NAMED IN THE HEARINGS IN WASHINGTON WHEN THE HOLLYWOOD TEN APPEARED. BECAUSE I WAS NAMED THEN, I WAS FIRED AFTER SEVEN YEARS AT THE STORY DEPARTMENT AT PARAMOUNT. THEN I HAD TO DECIDE HOW TO MAKE A LIVING AND I BECAME A SCREENWRITER BY ACCIDENT. THEY TELL ME I WAS A PRETTY GOOD SCREENWRITER FROM TIME TO TIME, BUT THE BLACKLIST HADN’T ACTUALLY STARTED IN 1947. I WAS PREMATURELY BLACKLISTED, YOU MIGHT SAY. I DID START TO GET WORK. I WORKED AT COLUMBIA AND I WORKED AT WARNER BROS. AND SO ON.

IT WAS ONLY WHEN I WAS WORKING AT UNIVERSAL IN 1952 AND HAD A CREDIT ON A TONY CURTIS FILM, “FLESH AND FURY”, AND ANOTHER CREDIT ON A ROCK HUDSON FILM AND I WAS GOING TO GET A CONTRACT THAT I FOUND OUT THAT THERE WAS A SUBPOENA OUT FOR ME. ACTUALLY, I STILL WENT TO WORK AT WARNER BROS. BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T KNOW I HAD A SUBPOENA OUT FOR ME. I WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF A SCRIPT WHEN I TOOK THE SUBPOENA RATHER THAN GET IT AT WARNER BROS. WHERE IT WOULD HAVE CAUSED A RATHER SHAMEFUL SITUATION. I WAS IMMEDIATELY TERMINATED IN THE MIDDLE OF WRITING A SCRIPT AND THAT’S WHEN THE BLACKLIST REALLY STARTED. I WOUND UP WITH MORE CREDITS CREDITED TO ME BY THE WRITERS GUILD IN MORE RECENT YEARS THAN ANY OTHER WRITER AND THERE ARE STILL FOUR MORE WHICH WE’RE ARGUING ABOUT. I HAD A TOTAL, REALLY, OF THIRTEEN CREDITS AS A BLACKLISTED SCREENWRITER. BUT BASICALLY, I HAD TO GO TO EUROPE TO WORK.

VAL>> MR. ROBB, WHY DID THE STUDIO HEADS COOPERATE WITH CONGRESS? DID THEY NEVER CONSIDER SIMPLY SAYING I’M SORRY, WE’RE JUST NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU THE NAMES AND THAT’S THAT?

DAVID ROBB>> WELL, I THINK, ONE, THEY WERE AFRAID OF ENDING UP ON THE LIST THEMSELVES AND, TWO, ANYTIME HOLLYWOOD HAS A DEALING WITH THE GOVERNMENT, THE GOVERNMENT HOLDS ALL THE ACES. YOU CAN EITHER FIGHT THEM OR YOU CAN COLLABORATE. HOLLYWOOD IS A COLLABORATIVE ART FORM, FILMMAKING IS A COLLABORATIVE ART FORM. HOLLYWOOD IS USED TO MAKING DEALS, BUT IN THIS CASE, THEY WERE MAKING A DEAL WITH THE DEVIL. THEY DIDN’T KNOW WHAT IT WAS GOING TO LEAD TO, I DON’T THINK, VERY MANY PEOPLE. THEY THOUGHT THEY COULD HOLD THEM OFF, WE CAN SORT OF SELF-REGULATE OURSELVES, WE’LL JUST SORT OF MAKE THIS GO AWAY, THEY’RE JUST A BUNCH OF COMMUNISTS ANYWAY, BUT IT TURNED OUT TO BE ONE OF THE GREAT DISASTERS IN RECENT YEARS.

JESS>> DON’T YOU THINK, FIFTY YEARS AFTER THE BLACKLISTING, THAT IT’S STILL AN ISSUE OF SUCH INTEREST AND SUCH CONCERN?

BERNARD GORDON>> WELL, IT’S OF INTEREST AND CONCERN BECAUSE THE BASIC ISSUE, FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, WAS NOT JUST WHAT HAPPENED TO INDIVIDUALS LIKE MYSELF AND THREE HUNDRED OTHERS. THE BASIC ISSUE WAS THE RIGHT TO EXPRESS DISSENT AGAINST WHATEVER IS GOING ON IN THE WORLD. IF, TODAY, I DON’T LIKE --

JESS>> -- AND IT WORKED, DIDN’T IT? IT DID QUELL DISSENT.

BERNARD GORDON>> OH, YES, YES, IT WORKED. IF, TODAY, I DON’T LIKE WHAT’S GOING ON IN WASHINGTON, I STILL HAVE TO BE AFRAID BECAUSE I’LL BE CALLED A PRO MUSLIM OR WHATEVER. THE THING ABOUT THE BLACKLIST WAS THAT IT WAS ONE WAY OF SUPPRESSING ALL POLITICAL DISSENT IN THE COUNTRY, WHICH I THINK IS THE WORST THING THAT CAN HAPPEN IN THIS WORLD. IF THE FIRST AMENDMENT MEANS ANYTHING, IT MEANS THAT YOU HAVE A RIGHT NOT TO SAY WHAT PEOPLE WANT TO HEAR, BUT WHAT PEOPLE DON’T WANT TO HEAR. THE LEFTWING AND THE COMMUNISTS AND SO ON HAD THINGS TO SAY ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING ON IN THE COUNTRY, WHICH WERE UNPOPULAR.

JESS>> AND YOU WERE AMONG THEM?

BERNARD GORDON>> I CERTAINLY WAS. I WAS A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY FOR QUITE A WHILE. I FINALLY QUIT LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE WHEN WE FOUND OUT WHAT STALIN REPRESENTED. NEVERTHELESS, I HAD A RIGHT TO BE A COMMUNIST. I HAD A RIGHT TO BE A MEMBER OF A LEGAL POLITICAL PARTY. I SHOULD NOT HAVE SPENT TEN YEARS UNDER THE COVER, UNABLE TO WORK OPENLY AND GET MY NAME ON CREDITS BECAUSE I HAD A POLITICAL POSITION. THAT WAS WHAT WAS INVOLVED.

VAL>> MR. ROBB, YOU MENTIONED THAT CONGRESS HOLDS ALL THE CARDS. IS THAT TRUE TODAY? WE HAVE, FOR EXAMPLE, STUDIO MOGULS LIKE HAIM SABAN, WHO’S CONTRIBUTED $8 MILLION DOLLARS TO THE DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE, AND STEVEN BING, ANOTHER PRODUCER WHO CONTRIBUTED $5 MILLION. DO THOSE CONTRIBUTIONS PERHAPS INSULATE HOLLYWOOD FROM CONGRESSIONAL PRESSURE?

DAVID ROBB>> NO. THEY STILL HAVE TO GO TO WASHINGTON TO GET WHAT THEY WANT.

VAL>> ARE WE AT RISK OF THIS KIND OF, MAYBE NOT A BLACKLIST, BUT SIMILAR KIND OF PRESSURE OCCURRING IN THIS ANTI-ISLAM ERA, ANTI-MUSLIM ERA? YOU KNOW, THAT SAME KIND OF FEAR. COULD THAT CAUSE SOMETHING LIKE THIS TO SURFACE AGAIN?

BERNARD GORDON>> I FEEL THAT, WHAT’S GOING ON IN THE WORLD TODAY, I DISAGREE WITH A GREAT DEAL OF WHAT’S GOING ON IN THE WORLD. I THINK I SHOULD HAVE A RIGHT -- AT MY AGE, I DON’T GIVE A DAMN IF THEY PUT ME IN JAIL OR NOT ANYMORE, BUT MANY PEOPLE ARE AFRAID TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS ABOUT WHAT’S GOING ON.

JESS>> WE STARTED OUT TALKING ABOUT THE FOREMAN-KRAMER CONTROVERSY. IS THAT REALLY ABOUT BLACKLISTING OR WAS THAT ABOUT PROFESSIONAL JEALOUSIES OR COMPETITION OR A SOILED PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP?

DAVID ROBB>> I THINK THE BLACKLIST DEFINITELY PLAYED A PART. FOREMAN WAS NO LONGER REALLY EMPLOYABLE IN HOLLYWOOD AFTER HE BECAME BLACKLISTED. BUT THE FACT IS, THE PROBLEM WITH HOLLYWOOD STORYTELLING, THERE ALWAYS HAS TO BE A HERO AND A VILLAIN. IN THIS CASE, CARL FOREMAN TRULY WAS A HERO, AS WAS BERNIE GORDON AND MANY OF THE OTHER BLACKLISTED WRITERS WHO STOOD UP AND WOULDN’T COOPERATE WITH AN ILLEGAL HOUSE COMMITTEE. BUT TO MAKE STANLEY KRAMER THE VILLAIN, I THINK IS REALLY UNFAIR. IT RAISES THE WHOLE QUESTION OF WHY WAS KRAMER MADE THE VILLAIN? HE DIDN’T NAME ANY NAMES. CARL FOREMAN DID GET SCREEN CREDIT, WRITER’S CREDIT, ON THE FILM. THERE WAS A DISPUTE OVER WHO SHOULD GET THE PRODUCING CREDIT AND NOBODY GOT THE PRODUCING CREDIT. KRAMER DIDN’T TAKE THE PRODUCING CREDIT. THE PROBLEM WITH PRODUCING CREDIT IS THERE’S NO UNION TO DETERMINE THOSE CREDITS. THE PRODUCERS GUILD IS NOT EVEN A UNION. IT’S NOT RECOGNIZED AS A UNION, IT DOESN’T HAVE A CONTRACT WITH THE STUDIOS.

JESS>> AND PERSONAL CONTRACTS DON’T DO IT?

DAVID ROBB>> NO. THE WRITERS GUILD IS A UNION. IT’S RECOGNIZED BY ALL THE STUDIOS AS A UNION. IT HAS CONTRACTS WITH ALL THE STUDIOS AND IT DETERMINES THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF CREDITS. THE PRODUCERS GUILD DOESN’T DETERMINE CREDITS, SO WHO KNOWS WHAT A PRODUCER IS? THE PRODUCERS ARE ALWAYS FIGHTING ABOUT WHAT IS A PRODUCER, WHO DID WHAT FUNCTIONS. MOST ALL THE CONTROVERSIES IN HOLLYWOOD OVER THE BLACKLIST CREDITS ARE ABOUT WRITERS. WRITERS WHO DIDN’T GET CREDIT, WHO, LIKE BERNIE, HAD TO USE PSEUDONYMS OR FRONTS OR FRIENDS WHO WOULD HELP THEM GET THE CREDIT SO THAT THEY COULD WORK.

THIS WAS NOT ABOUT A FRONT OR A PSEUDONYM. THIS WAS A DISPUTE, I THINK, OVER WHAT IS A PRODUCER. TO MAKE STANLEY KRAMER THE BAD GUY WITHOUT HAVING ANYBODY LIKE ABBY MANN ON TV, ON CAMERA, TO DEFEND STANLEY KRAMER, I THINK SHOWS THAT THE FILMMAKER, LIONEL CHETWYND, WHO IS ONE OF THE MOST WELL-KNOWN CONSERVATIVE PEOPLE IN HOLLYWOOD, VERY CONSERVATIVE, HAS A POLITICAL AGENDA WHICH IS BASICALLY TO DESTROY AND TO HURT THE IMAGE OF STANLEY KRAMER, WHO IS ONE OF THE MOST FAMOUS LIBERALS, PROBABLY THE MOST FAMOUS LIBERAL IN HOLLYWOOD.

VAL>> SO YOU’RE SAYING THAT THE -- YOUR TAKE ON THIS DOCUMENTARY IS THAT IT WAS POLITICALLY MOTIVATED TO SETTLE A SCORE?

DAVID ROBB>> WHEN IT’S A ONE-SIDED SHOW WHERE ONLY CARL FOREMAN’S SIDE IS PRESENTED, BUT NOT KRAMER’S SIDE, IT MAKES YOU WONDER IS THERE A POLITICAL AGENDA? IS THERE SOMETHING GOING ON HERE? I DON’T THINK YOU HAVE TO GIVE BOTH SIDES OF STORIES ABOUT HITLER OR AL CAPONE, BUT WHEN YOU’RE DEALING WITH A HIGHLY-RESPECTED PERSON LIKE STANLEY KRAMER, I THINK YOU DO. WHEN YOU SAY IN YOUR STORY -- HE’S QUOTING CARL FOREMAN. HE DESCRIBED A SCENE OF AN ARGUMENT HE WAS HAVING WITH STANLEY KRAMER AND HE REFERRED TO HIM AS “A HITLERIAN CARPET EATER”. HE ACTUALLY REFERRED TO HIM IN THE DOCUMENTARY AS “HITLERIAN”. WELL, I DON’T THINK STANLEY KRAMER WAS “HITLERIAN” AND, WHEN YOU ACCUSE SOMEBODY OF BEING “HITLERIAN”, YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOMEBODY ON THERE TO RESPOND TO THAT.

VAL>> MR. GORDON, WHAT’S YOUR TAKE ON THE DOCUMENTARY?

BERNARD GORDON>> WELL, I APPROACHED THE FILM WITH GREAT MISGIVINGS. I WAS VERY, VERY SURPRISED AND PLEASED THAT WHAT THE FILM DID WAS TO TALK HONESTLY ABOUT THE BLACKLIST AND GIVE CARL FOREMAN, WHO WAS A FRIEND OF MINE, THE PROPER KIND OF CREDIT. I STARTED OUT TODAY ARGUING WITH MY FRIEND DAVE HERE AND I THINK HE’S GOT ME CONVINCED, AND I CERTAINLY AGREE, THAT KRAMER WAS AN IMPORTANT PRODUCER. BUT I DO THINK THAT THE FILM WAS ABOUT THE BLACKLISTING OF FOREMAN IN RELATION TO “HIGH NOON” AND, INSOFAR AS IT WAS LIMITED TO THAT, IT WAS VERY GOOD AND IT CAME FROM A VERY, I WON’T SAY REACTIONARY BUT CONSERVATIVE, MAN WHO I DIDN’T EXPECT TO TREAT THE BLACKLIST IN THAT WAY. SO I WAS PLEASED WITH IT. I THOUGHT IT WAS POLITICALLY GOOD UNTIL HE CAME ALONG AND CHANGED MY MIND (LAUGHTER).

JESS>> BERNARD GORDON AND DAVID ROBB, THANK YOU BOTH FOR BEING WITH US. WE APPRECIATE YOUR VIEWS.

VAL>> NOT UNTIL THE MID-90’S DID SOME WRITERS AND PRODUCERS GET CREDIT FOR THE WORK THEY DID ON FILMS DURING THE BLACKLIST ERA. THE BATTLE HAS CONTINUED FOR MORE THAN FIFTY YEARS. CREDITS ARE STILL BEING CORRECTED AND MEMORIES OF THE BLACKLIST LIVE ON.

JESS>> THE WOUNDS CLEARLY RUN DEEP AND THE SCARS MAY NEVER HEAL. IN HOLLYWOOD, I’M JESS MARLOW.

VAL>> I’M VAL ZAVALA. THANKS FOR JOINING US.