This
book is a study in the nature of the preferred messages of the small
narrowly-defined Hollywood control group, that has for nearly 90-years, been
able to use the very powerful communications medium of the motion picture as a
propaganda vehicle for those very messages.
This
work grew out of the observed frustration of film industry critics who have
chosen to criticize specific Hollywood movies over the years only to be
rebuffed by the overly simplistic studio arguments that such films reflect the
real world and that moviegoers vote with their pocket books. After all, if it can be shown that there is
a consistent pattern to the choices Hollywood studio executives make with
respect to the movies produced and released and the specific content of those
movies, it becomes obvious that Hollywood is selectively portraying reality and
that moviegoers only have limited options among all of the possibilities that
could be portrayed on the silver screen, thus suggesting that their "vote
at the box office" is a fair choice is disingenuous.
This
study of Hollywood movie propaganda serves as a companion volume to several
other books in a series about Hollywood.
Two of those books, Patterns of
Bias in Motion Picture Content and Motion
Picture Biographies clearly demonstrate that blatant patterns of bias exist
in Hollywood films in the sense that whole populations of our culturally
diverse society are consistently portrayed in a negative or stereotypical
manner. This book in turn, demonstrates
that when it comes time for the Hollywood control group to portray itself and
its fellows on the screen, it tends to do so in a more favorable light.
Another
book in the series: Who Really Controls
Hollywood reveals the fact that the Hollywood-based U.S. motion picture
industry is controlled by a single very narrowly defined interest group. It further concludes that it is
inappropriate for any such group to control a significant medium for the
communication of ideas in a society that is as diverse as that in the U.S.
A
fifth book in this series on Hollywood, How
the Movie Wars Were Won catalogs and discusses a variety of business
practices and other techniques used by the Hollywood control group to gain and
maintain its dominance over the U.S. film industry for the past 90 years. The book concludes that many of such
business practices are unfair, unethical, anti-competitive, predatory, and in
some case, illegal. A closely related
volume entitled The Feature Film
Distribution Deal critically analyzes the single most important film
industry agreement and shows how the Hollywood major studio/distributors have
abused their excessive power in the film industry marketplace to contractually
exploit producers, directors, writers, actors, actresses, investors and others
through documents that can only be characterized as contracts of adhesion
filled with unconscionable provisions.
Another
of the books in this series, Motion
Picture Industry Reform takes a serious look at various approaches to
instigating significant and long-term reform in the way the motion picture
industry operates. It specifically
promotes a policy designed to insure equal and fair opportunities for persons
of all races, religions, ethnicity, cultures, nations or regions of origin,
sexual preferences and so forth to tell their cultural stories through this
important communications medium, the feature-length motion picture.
--o0o–
Chapter 1
PROPAGANDA IN MOTION PICTURES
This
initial discussion incorporates the comments of many of our best thinkers on
propaganda generally. Others of the
comments quoted here apply to the particular communications medium of primary
concern to this book. The effect of the
combination is to provide a context within which motion picture propaganda can
be discussed and analyzed.
Some
Thoughts on Propaganda--Albert Schweitzer was once quoted as saying that the
" . . . organized political, social and religious associations of our time
are at work to induce individual man not to arrive at his convictions by his
own thinking but to take as his own, such convictions as they keep ready-made
for him."[1] This book and its companion volumes Who Really Controls Hollywood, Motion Picture Biographies and Patterns of Bias in Motion Pictures provide
cumulative evidence in support of the assertion that the institution of
Hollywood as controlled by the major studio/distributors is also at work to
induce individuals not to arrive at their convictions by their own thinking but
to take as their own, such convictions as Hollywood keeps ready-made for them. In other words, Hollywood movies, taken as a
whole, represent the systematic propagation of information reflecting the views
and interests of those people who control the medium. And of course, the most dangerous propaganda is that which we do
not realize is propaganda, and propagandist feature films disguised as
entertainment follow that maxim exceedingly well.
Walter
Lippmann (speaking about democratic governments and public policy generally)
observed that in any society, the insider group tends to feel that "[t]he
public must be put in its place . . . so that we may live free of the trampling
and the roar of a bewildered herd . . .
If they cannot be subdued by force . . . " Lippmann says the
insiders assert that
" . . . their thoughts must be efficiently
controlled; lacking coercive force, authority can only turn to indoctrination
to achieve the essential ends . . . "[2] Thus, as Koppes and Black report,
"[s]ome view . . . propaganda as a positive alternative to coercion
of the population."[3]
Propaganda
is defined as the dissemination of ideas, facts or allegations with the
expressed intent of furthering one's cause or of damaging an opposing
cause. It is the " . . .
systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the
views and interests of those people advocating such a doctrine or cause."[4]
As
Rebert Merton observes, "[m]ass persuasion is not manipulative when it
provides access to the pertinent facts; it is manipulative when the appeal to
sentiment is used to the exclusion of pertinent information."[5] Of course, that is exactly what Hollywood
films tend to do, " . . . appeal to sentiment . . . " to the
exclusion of a great deal of " . . . pertinent information."
MIT professor Noam Chomsky further explains
that a " . . . principle familiar to propagandists is that the doctrines
to be instilled in the target audience should not be articulated: that would
only expose them to reflection, inquiry, and, very likely, ridicule. The proper procedure is to drill them home
by constantly presupposing them, so that they become the very condition for
discourse."[6] Numerous false doctrines about the U.S. film
industry are routinely circulated as "presuppositions" by the
"mouth-piece" of the MPAA, Jack Valenti. On certain issues relating to the film business, Valenti is the
chief propagandist of the major studio distributors (see discussions at
"The Worlds Greatest PR Machine" and "Myth and
Misinformation" in this book's companion volume How the Movie Wars Were Won).
Other doctrines or beliefs are routinely and consistently set forth and
pre-supposed truths in
numerous Hollywood motion pictures (see Patterns of Bias in Motion Picture Content
and Motion Picture Biographies).
British
author Alexander Cockburn admits to a rather negative view of what Hollywood
has accomplished around the world:
"Sometimes the
American film industry's mundane economic interests were clothed in exalted
language, as when the head of Paramount told the New York Times in 1946, 'We,
the industry, recognize the need for informing people in foreign lands about
the things that have made America a great country, and we think we know how to
put across the message of our democracy.'
Of course, while mythology tells us that this message was conveyed
through the irresistibly combined charm of American stars, stories and
production values, it has actually been force-fed to the world through the
careful engineering of taste, ruthless commercial clout, arm-twisting by the
U.S. departments of Commerce and State, threats of reverse trade embargoes and
other such heavy artillery."[7]
In
the late '80s, producer David Puttnam said: "In short, cinema is
propaganda. Benign or malign, social or
anti-social, the factual nature of its responsibility cannot be avoided."[8] Puttnam also told Bill Moyers in 1989, that
"[e]very single movie has within it an element of propaganda . . . "[9] Also writing in the late '80s, film
historian George MacDonald Frazer wrote that every " . . . generation is
brainwashed, and brainwashes itself . . . " All films, according to
Frazer, " . . . may be regarded as a sort of propaganda . . . There is not
necessarily anything sinister about this; the most telling propaganda is not
that which is manufactured by the mischievous, but that which the author
genuinely accepts himself . . . Film-makers' outlooks, incidentally, can be
eccentric . . . "[10]
In
addition, contemporary writer, director, producer, Reginald Hudlin (House Party and Boomerang) says: "Blacks need to see a greater diversity of
images . . . It is both healthy and entertaining to see black people as they
actually are. That may not be
necessarily all peaches and cream, but if you make good art, if you tell the
truth and the character, whether he's a doctor or a pimp, is a fully
dimensional human being, then that's the most successful propaganda you can
make."[11] Also, Michael Medved, writing as recently as
1992, stated that "[m]ost (film) projects are designed . . . to reach a
mass audience--though even such commercial ventures are often marred by
shocking or propagandistic elements that have been incongruously imbedded
within the material."[12]
Finally,
Koppes and Black contend that "[a]ccess to information is crucial to
democratic citizenship; hence Americans have usually regarded propaganda, with
its connotations of tainted information, with suspicion."[13] That is why, of course, that much of the
Hollywood insider community would want us to believe that their films are not
propagandistic and that only governments disseminate propaganda. On the other hand, actress Bette Midler at
least admits that " . . . movies are like propaganda. They are like instruction
. . . " she says, " . . . like
messages, and you can't be vague about what you are saying. If you don't have a vision, you are just
acting someone else's point of view."[14]
Early
Film Propaganda--In any case, as early as 1898, " . . . during the
Spanish-American War (the Vitagraph Company) . . . produced Tearing Down the Spanish Flag . . .
" described by the Katz Film Encyclopedia as " . . . probably the
world's first propaganda film
. . . During WWI, (James Stuart Blackton)
directed and produced a series of patriotic propaganda films, the most famous
of which, and which he also wrote, was The
Battle Cry of Peace--A Call to Arms Against War (1915), based on a
hypothetical attack on New York City by a foreign invader."[15]
Thus,
film " . . . became an instrument of propaganda in its early years. Lenin considered film 'the most important
art,' and popes, presidents, and press agents concurred. During World War I American films such as The Beast of Berlin and My Four Years in Germany touched off
anti-German riots in some cities. D.W.
Griffith turned his masterful touch to Allied propaganda with Hearts of the World, starring Lillian
Gish, in 1918. The Soviet Union had its
propaganda masterpieces such as Sergei Eisenstein's Potemkin while Nazi Germany could boast of Leni Riefenstah's Triumph of the Will. In any
consideration of propaganda, film took a leading role."[16]
The
Griffith propaganda film Hearts of the
World was made in partnership with Adolph Zukor. The film " . . . netted a quick profit at the box office and
helped ease Griffith's financial burdens." Griffith's The Girl Who
Stayed At Home (1919) was also " . . . intended as a propaganda piece
to help the U.S. government popularize the idea of the selective draft."[17] Actor Karl Dane (Karl Daen) came to
Hollywood from Copenhagen during WWI and " . . . impersonated Chancellor
von Bethmann-Hollweg in three anti-German propaganda features of 1918-19." He also appeared as the " . . .
tobacco-chewing doughboy in the WWI epic The
Big Parade."[18]
Some
of the early Hollywood film moguls themselves recognized that movies can be
propaganda. For example, Harry Warner,
upon the advent of sound with motion pictures, actually stated: "We think
of the film as the greatest of all the media for propaganda . . . (with sound,
it) may even serve to eliminate war among the nations."[19] Also, as noted above, certain foreign
leaders recognized the essential nature of movies. Lenin, again " . . .
intended that the cinema first and foremost should provide the new
revolutionary regime with its most effective weapon of agitation, propaganda,
and education."[20]
During
the 1930s the " . . . antagonism to propaganda was reinforced by the
suspicion that British propaganda had helped maneuver the country into war in
1917."[21] Also, during this period, according to
Lester Friedman, " . . . most Hollywood film producers attempted to ignore
events in Europe as much as possible, lest they be accused of edging America
into the war. Once World War II was
declared, however, Hollywood plunged headlong into the propaganda business,
much to the delight of the supportive federal government."[22] As can seen from the discussion below,
Friedman's observation appear to be somewhat influenced by what he would like
to believe "most Hollywood film producers" were supposedly doing,
while omitting a reference to the fact that some Hollywood producers (as
reported by Koppes and Black), were in fact doing exactly what Friedman
suggests the majority was avoiding, (i.e., making movies designed to edge
America into the war).
Fraser
also states that "[i]t is common to suggest that films of the thirties,
and especially of the forties, were vehicles of propaganda." But he appears to be a bit more honest than
Friedman. Fraser says: "Of course they were. The cinema was the most powerful propaganda medium in history . .
. during the war it was employed to the full, as television documentaries are
never tired of pointing out . . . we knew it was propaganda, and we were all
for it . . . Does it ever occur to modern cinemagoers that Dirty Harry and Animal House
and Full Metal Jacket and Kramer vs Kramer may be propaganda, too,
whether their makers know it or not?"[23] While Fraser admits that many films are
propagandistic, he deftly avoided following up on his own earlier statement
about films of the thirties and forties by limiting his propaganda label to
film released "during the war".
As noted below, his earlier statement about films in the thirties also
being propaganda appears to be just as accurate. Evenso, most spokespersons for the film industry have denied that
such films were propagandistic.[24] It would be more honest to admit that most
films are propagandistic. Then, the
discussion could move on toward just what point of view is being promoted
through film.
One
contemporary author, an attorney and a somewhat famous television producer have
finally been a bit more forthright about the essential nature of motion
pictures. Author Ronald Brownstein (The Power and the Glitter) writing in
1992, reports that the" . . . emerging mindset in Hollywood . . . "
reflects " . . . a mass attempt at organizing the industry for a mass
public-education campaign . . . "
Of course, that is nothing more than using movies as a propaganda
vehicle.
Also,
Los Angeles attorney Bonnie Reiss and television producer and Norman Lear have
both created organizations (the Earth Communications Office and the
Environmental Media Association, respectively) specifically for the purpose of
insinuating
" . . . environmental messages into
television programs and movies . . . the two groups shared a common approach to
political communications. Each was
built on the belief that, through
its dominant position in the culture, Hollywood
can change political attitudes and personal behavior.
As
the Lear' organization argued in a message to supporters, 'Films, television
programs and music have a unique ability to infuse the popular culture with a particular message .
. . the public transmission of private propaganda disguised as
entertainment.'"[25] In this single statement Hollywood liberal
Norman Lear and his organization admitted what so many others in Hollywood have
routinely denied: that films can influence behavior (Why else would it be
important to "infuse the popular culture with a particular message?) and
that movies are propaganda disguised as entertainment.
What
follows in Chapter 2 is a presentation of the case supporting the assertion
that a significant number of Hollywood films released prior to the U.S. entry
into World War II, were in fact propagandistic, in that they were specifically
either anti-fascist, anti-Nazi, anti-isolationist and/or pro-interventionist.
As
Koppes and Black report, "[t]here was a nest of communists and fellow
travelers in the film colony in the 1930s." On the other hand, Koppes and Black also state that
"[b]ecause of the structure of the industry . . . they had virtually no
chance to inject their politics into their products."[26] This latter statements appears to be another
case of writers protesting an allegation so strongly that their credibility is
severely weakend, at least on this particular point. The history of Hollywood and its relationship with both the
Production Code Administration headed by Joseph Breen and the Office of War
Information's Motion Picture Bureau is repleat with examples of the film
industry manipulating the content of films to skirt around the explicit efforts
of such offices to control or influence the content of films. How, then can any writer make the claim that
the studio executives could be 100% successful in preventing well disguised
communist propaganda or other sympathetic messages from being included in a film
when virtually no one can make such a claim with regard to the kind of messages
the Production Code Administration was trying to prevent or the kind of
messages the Office of War Information wanted to see in the Hollywood movies? Further, on some issues, during this period,
the Communist position and the American liberal position was so similar as to
be indistinguishable. In addition, the
entire series of pro-Russian films produced by Hollywood during this period
were filled with messages supported by the Communists.[27]
Thus, Koppes', statement that the Hollywood
Communists " . . . had virtually no chance to inject their politics into
their products . . . " cannot be taken seriously.
Chapter 2
HOLLYWOOD PROPAGANDA AND WORLD WAR II
The
use of motion pictures as propaganda tools during World War II presents a
unique opportunity to study this powerful combination of propagandistic
technique and the very powerful communications medium of the motion picture.[28] The Nazis came to power in Germany in 1933.[29] According to Patricia Erens the " . . .
first film to document the growing anti-Semitism in Germany was independently
financed, and chronicled Cornelius Vanderbilt's visit to Germany and Austria in
1934." The film Hitler's Reign of Terror (1934--aka The Reign of Nazi Terror), used " .
. . news clips and reconstructed dramatization to give a warning of what lay
ahead."[30] Friedman calls the film an " . . .
indictment of the Nazi's war on the Jews . . . " It depicts a " . . . bookburning ceremony in which Nazis
destroy works by Jews and others considered enemies of the state." Other scenes show " . . . Nazi violence
against Jews and of Jews suffering in concentration camps . . . " Again, Freidman states that " . . .
these sequences represent just part of a whole panorama of negative images in .
. . " what he terms an " . . . obviously propagandistic work . . .
"[31] Michael Mindlin directed.
No
one is suggesting here that such propagandistic films should not have been
made. These examples of the particular
World War II propaganda films are merely being used to illustrate that film
can, and has been used for propaganda purposes.
That same year, according to Steven
Scheuer, Little Man What Now? (1934)
was
" . . . the earliest of all of Hollywood's
anti-Nazi films . . . " Frank Borzage directed for Universal.[32] Keep in mind that this was 1934, some 7
years before the U.S. actively and openly entered World War II. It is also fair to conclude that any film
that can be fairly labeled as "anti-Nazi" is also clearly
propagandistic. Subsequently, Charlie
Chaplin's Modern Times, the satire on
Hitler and Mussolini (with Paulette Goddard) was released in 1936 after
" . . . the Nazis became the second largest
party in Germany, going from 12 to 107 seats in the Reichstag . . . "
after the " . . . body of Charles Lindbergh's baby was found . . . "
after
" . . . the first concentration camp opened
in Germany . . . " after the Mussolini invasion of Ethiopia in 1935 and
after Franco started the civil war in Spain in 1936 (with Hitler's support).[33] Even if it is argued that Hollywood entered
the fray late, there is probably no time in which the efforts of the Hollywood
community to influence world and U.S. opinion and policy through movie
propaganda are more clear than the late thirties.
In
March 1936, " . . . German troops had entered the Rhineland after Hitler
had denounced the Locarno Treaty demilitarizing the region. Four months later a
rebellion of right-wing officers, led by General Francisco Franco, launched a
civil war in Spain. Germany threw its
support to the rebel side, supplying tanks and air power. Italy joined the fray . . . " forming
the so-called "Rome-Berlin Axis".[34] That same year, (1936) I Was a Captive of
Nazi Germany was released. As
Patricia Erens reports, it also " . . . recounts the experiences of an
American in Hitler's Germany: Isobel Lillian Steele, a young woman who had
spent four months in a German prison on charges of espionage."[35]
In
1937, " . . . the war in Spain shrieked from the front pages of newspapers
. . . and thousands of American progressives joined the Lincoln Brigade to
fight fascism in Spain. Half never
returned." While Hitler's " .
. . troops and planes fought with Franco against the Loyalists aided by
Stalin's troops and planes . . . [i]solationists and pacifists campaigned
against war . . . " however, according to Rosenberg " . . . everyone
knew that war was inevitable . . . " That was the same year that Paramount
released The Last Train from Madrid,
a film that " . . . turns on separate and intermingled stories of people
seeking passage on the train . . . "
As Rosenberg points out, these were people who " . . . are
surrounded by fear of imminent death . . . "[36] In light of the world circumstances during
which The Last Train from Madrid was
released, it too must be considered a propaganda piece.
Also,
in 1937, 20th Century-Fox's Love Under
Fire, starred Loretta Young and Don Ameche. George Marshall directed.
According to Steven Scheuer, the film was about " . . . spies . . .
(and) set against the Spanish Civil War . . . "[37] The Halliwell's Film Guide description
differs somewhat, however, saying the film was about a " . . . detective
(who) catches up with a lady jewel thief in Madrid during the Spanish Civil
War."[38] It strains credibility for anyone to assert
that a Hollywood film community that strongly supported the Spanish Republican
government in its struggle against the fascists could turn out a film about and
during the Spanish Civil War that did not contain some propagandistic elements
favoring the Loyalists in Spain or opposing Franco's takeover.
According
to Koppes and Black, the first Hollywood film producer to attempt a serious
film on events in Europe was an independent, Walter Wanger (born Walter
Feuchtwanger). He released Blockade through United Artists in
1938. Koppes and Black report:
"UA had already
closed its Spanish office and its European revenues had declined drastically
since 1935. Neither Wanger nor UA had
much to lose by making a film set in contemporary Spain. However, the national uproar that ensued
over the film heightened the apprehension about political films in some major
studios. The Spanish Civil War was one
of the great divisive international issues of the 1930's. American liberals and the left generally
supported the Loyalist government, three thousand of them joining the Abraham
Lincoln Brigade to fight for Republican Spain.
The right, including elements of the Catholic Church, generally
supported Franco and the fascists.
Germany and Italy poured huge amounts of arms and men into Franco's
cause and were instrumental in his victory.
The Soviet Union supported the Loyalists, but its aid could not match
that from Berlin and Rome. Like Great
Britain and France, the United States, bound by the Neutrality Acts, stood
by. To some, the Spanish Civil War
seemed a prelude to World War II."[39]
The Blockade story revolved around an
" . . . adventuress (Madeleine Carroll, who) meets and loves a member
(Henry Fonda) of the Loyalist forces in Civil War--torn Spain."[40]
The film was directed by William Dieterle . . .
" who was actually born Wilhelm Dieterle in Ludwigshafen, Germany. He had emigrated to Hollywood in 1930.[41] In any case, the film
" . . . was released in June of 1938. Although, according to Koppes and Black, the
film " . . . was shot with great circumspection to avoid explicit
identification with either camp . . . "
On the other hand, few politically conscious Americans in 1938 would
have been confused over the issues or the sides battling in Blockade . . . Franco supporters
considered the film blatant propaganda.
Blockade was boycotted and
picketed by Catholic organizations throughout the United States."[42]
During
the years 1936 through 1938, Walter Wanger also " . . . tried to make Personal History (based on) . . .
journalist Vincent Sheean's rambling account of revolution and war in China,
and of conditions in the Middle East and Europe . . . " The story is about " . . . a newspaper
reporter (who) . . . covers the Spanish Civil War. In Spain he discovers the brutality of the fascists; in Germany
he discovers the anti-Semitic policies of the Nazi regime. He dramatically rescues several Jews from
persecution and marries a Jewish girl.
The film was to be a strong indictment of Franco and Hitler . . . in the
opinion of the PCA, the script contained 'pro Loyalist propaganda . . .
pro-Jewish propaganda, and anti-Nazi propaganda
. . . "
Wanger ultimately abandoned the project " . . . citing 'casting
difficulties'."[43] Again, it is the contention of this work
that there is nothing inherently wrong with portraying any of the issues cited
with concern by the PCA. It can easily
be argued that hindsight proved those sentiments to be correct for the
time. The real problem arises when we
recognize that this very powerful communications medium (the motion picture) is
controlled by a small narrowly-defined interest group and it is only presenting
one side of important political issues being debated nationally.
In
any event, Wanger eventually, retitled his film Foreign Correspondent. In
the new version all " . . . references to Spain were removed, and German
policy toward the Jews was not dealt with.
The picture did not directly attack the Germans or imply that all
Germans were evil . . . Foreign
Correspondent was mild enough to cause little concern."[44] The film was released in 1940. On the other hand, it would have been
healthier for the country if Wanger had been able to make his original film and
that others had the economic and political freedom to make films expressing the
opposing point of view. Again, the real
problem was (and still is) that certain opposing points of view are generally
excluded from
Hollywood films, thus, right or wrong, it is
only natural that the spokespersons for those excluded positions will complain
when Hollywood consistently presents its narrow views.
Also,
in 1938, Three Comrades starred
Robert Taylor, Robert Young, Margaret Sullivan, Franchot Tone and Lionel Atwill
in a film based on Erich Remarque's novel " . . . about post-World War I
Germany . . . " Again, Frank Borzage directed.[45] The film (produced by Joseph L. Mankiewicz
for release by MGM ) was set in " . . . twenties Germany, (where) three
friends find life hard but derive some joy from their love for a high-spirited
girl who is dying of tuberculosis."
Halliwell's Film Guide states that the film was " . . . prevented
by censorship from being the intended indictment of Nazi Germany."[46] On the other hand, Patricia Erens reports
that the " . . . film did not highlight the 'Jewish problem', but the
presence of Dr. Jafe (played by Monty Woolley) and the portraiture of
pre-Fascist Germany made its own point."[47]
In
addition to the above cited feature films, as the Katz Film Encyclopedia
admits,
that " . . . anti-Nazi propaganda
documentaries were being made . . . " in the U.S. even before America's
entry into the war. "The March of Time led the way with such
conscience-raising editions as Inside
Nazi Germany (1938), Canada at War (1939),
The Ramparts We Watch (1940), and America Speaks Her Mind (1941)."[48] In addition, Koppes and Black report that
" . . . most news coverage in 1940-41 . . .
" was pro-interventionist.
"Hollywood movies and newsreels that dealt with international
subjects were almost wholly interventionist."[49] "Interventionist domination of the news
media, attributable in part to the informational propaganda strategy (of the
Roosevelt administration), undercut the presumed need for more forceful
propaganda--and indeed raised questions about the even handedness of the
media."[50]
Thus, when the analysis of propaganda films just
prior to World War II is expanded to include documentaries, film shorts and
newsreels, as well as features, it becomes quite clear that films were being
used as propaganda prior to the U.S. entry into the war.
In
1939, Confessions of a Nazi Spy
"nailed Warners' colours to the mast before (World War II) . . . had even
begun (and some 2 years before U.S. entry) . . . " According to Frazer, the film is " . .
. an outright attack on Nazi subversion in the U.S., with Edward G. Robinson as
the G-man exposing the plots of Paul Lukas and George Sanders, and (the film)
has that convincing semi-documentary quality which Hollywood was so good at."[51] Sperling calls the film " . . . a
well-documented indictment of the Nazis and the condemnation of the officially
'friendly' nation of Germany."[52] Scheuer specifically labels the film
"propaganda", saying it was a "[w]ell-done propaganda melodrama
about a weak link in the Nazi spy network . . . "[53]
Koppes
and Black go on to write that the " . . . tortuous process of making
Robert Sherwood's Pulitizer Prize-winning antiwar, antifascist play Idiot's Delight into an innocuous movie
(MGM-1939) exemplified the problems the studios faced in making pictures on
political themes . . . The play stresses that war is folly and condemns
fascism. But the Hays Office would not
let the industry make a movie criticizing Mussolini--this in the late 1930s,
after Il Duce's aggression against helpless Ethiopia, crucial support for
Franco, and adoption of anti-Semitic laws based on those of Nazi Germany. Instead Joseph Breen went to extraordinary
lengths to pacify the Italian government."[54]
It
is interesting that Koppes and Black seem to blame Breen personally for a
policy that was clearly in the economic interest of the studios and was
supported by the studio executives. It
is also interesting that the criticism is made against conservative forces in
the U.S. for possibly influencing the film industry censorship office to
prevent blatantly propagandistic films as a counter to the film industry's own
efforts to prevent conservatives and isolationists from expressing their views
through important motion pictures. It
seems that it is hardly fair to condemn the practice of one over the
other. As it turns out, Idiot's Delight film was " . . . released in February
1939 . . . But in that year of rising tension, Spain, France, Switzerland, and
Estonia banned it, and it did not play in Italy because new commercial
restrictions made the exhibition of American movies unprofitable."[55] Of course, if Spain, France, Switzerland and Estonio banned the film, it must
not have been as "innocuous" as Koppes and Black would lead us to
believe.
Because
of the suspicions regarding government-backed propaganda agencies mentioned
earlier, "[w]hen war broke out in Europe on September 1, 1939, the United
States was the only major power without a propaganda agency."[56] But the private sector, partially made up
for this omission. Samuel Goldwyn
decided that he " . . . wanted to distribute (the) . . . 1939 British
production (Pastor Hall) through
United Artists." The film
dramatized the inspiring courage of Martin Niemoller, the World War I U-boat
captain-turned-pacifist-preacher, in the face of the Nazis. The film . . . vividly illustrated Nazi
stormtroopers moving into a German village, conducting a campaign of terror,
and sending Niemoller to a concentration camp." Breen considered the film "British propaganda" and said
" . . . its distribution by one of our companies would expose us to the
charge of going out of our way to propagandize for the allies . . . None of the
major studios took the film (but) . . . James Roosevelt, FDR's son and president
of Globe Productions, decided to distribute Pastor
Hall
. . . It
would have been impolitic for Breen or Hays to tell the President's son he
could not distribute the film, so Breen had some of the more violent scenes
deleted and quietly issued
. . . " his approval. "The film was eventually released
through United Artists."[57]
According
to Patricia Erens, the film that broke the ice with respect to depicting "
. . . Hitler's anti-Jewish policies cam from the USSR. Professor
Mamlock (1938), a film about the persecution and eventual death of a German
Jewish doctor, was released in the United States in 1939. The story chronicles the gradual political
shifts in Germany, incorporating such actual events as the smashing of windows
in Berlin, book burning, and the Reichstag fire, which is blamed on the Reds
and the Jews." As Erens reports,
the " . . . film ends with an inspiring, if appropriately Communistic
message." In addition, Erens
states that the film " . . . clearly singles out the Jews as the enemies
of the Third Reich."[58]
On
the other hand, according to Koppes and Black, the " . . . turning point
in (the U.S.) political films came with Warner Brothers' Confessions of a Nazi Spy . . . " released in 1939. Again, this was still more than a year
before the U.S. entry into World War II.
The film was " . . . based on a real incident: Nazi spies who came
to the United States had been caught and convicted by a federal court in New
York City . . . Confessions was
directed by Anatole Litvak (born Michael Anatol Litwak in Kiev, Russia the son
of a Jewish bank manager). It was
written by John Wexley, and starred Paul Lukas (born in Budapest) and Edward G.
Robinson (who was born Emmanuel Goldenberg in Bucharest, came to the U.S. at
age 10, grew up on New York's Lower East Side
and " . . . gave up plans to become a rabbi
. . . in favor of acting . . . ")[59]
The
film " . . . reflected the anti-Nazi ideology of the production cast. Litvak and Lucas were German emigres, and
Wexley and Robinson were active in the Hollywood anti-Nazi movement."[60] The film " . . . pulled no punches in
identifying Nazi Germany as a threat to American security. Germany aimed for world domination, the film
proclaimed."[61]
The
boldness of the Warner Bros. studio " . . . spread apprehension among
other studios. The foreign department
of Paramount thought Warners was making a grave mistake. Paramount executives recalled that when
Charlie Chaplin first proposed his 'burlesque of Hitler'--the picture that
eventually became The Great Dictator (and
was released by United Artists in 1940) . . . he had been chastized for
devoting 'his money-making talents to a film which could only have horrible
repercussions on the Jews still in Germany' . . . Luigi Laraschi, of
Paramount's Censorship Department, wrote that . . . 'Warners will have on their
hands the blood of a great many Jews in Germany.'" Koppes saw this is a
" . . . classic case not only of blaming the victim but of traducing those
who wanted to help."[62] On the other hand, Jewish people
legitimately concerned about what was happening in Germany at the time, were in
a very difficult position. Many of the
Jews still in Germany at the time recognized that behaving in a reckless manner
might endanger their lives. In the
background, of course was the knowledge that " . . . some World War I
films had triggered anti-German riots in the United States . . . "[63]
The
Warners film (Confession) " . .
. identified the German-American Bund as an arm of the German government whose
purpose was to destroy the American Constitution and Bill of Rights. Robinson, who plays the FBI agent, declares
that Germany is at war with the United States . . . In the final scene the
district attorney lectures the jury--substitute American public--about the
dangers of isolationism."[64] Even the Hollywood Reporter termed Confessions . . . a 'straightforward
attack on Nazism . . . " Koppes
and Black call Confessions of a Nazi Spy,
Hollywood's " . . . first genuinely anti-Nazi film . . . "[65] They point out that "[b]y 1940
Hollywood had crossed an important threshold.
Some studios had begun to make explicitly interventionist films. These subjects would remain a small fraction
of the industry's output, but the departure from a sole reliance on 'the
pleasant and profitable course of entertainment' marked a significant shift in
thinking."[66]
Next,
in 1940, came " . . . Charlie Chaplin's triumph, The Great Dictator
(which) . . . lampooned the pretensions and vulgarity of Hitler and
Mussolini. Chaplin, play[ed] . . . the
parts of both Hynkle, dictator of Tomania, and a Jewish barber persecuted by
the Nazis
. . . "[67] The film was " . . . a daring slap at a
time when it was thought Hitler could still be pacified . . . (the film)
critique(s) Fascist ideals more convincingly than any political speech."[68] Here we have an admission to the effect that
a message carried through film is more effective than if the same message were
communicated through a public speech.
Thus, if public speeches can motivate human beings, and no one would
doubt that they can, and have throughout history, then clearly movies can also
motivate human behavior, after all, as stated above, movies can " . . .
critique Fascist ideals more convincingly than any political speech."
The
Katz Film Encyclopedia called Chaplin's 1940 classic " . . . the most
significant antifascist film, both politically and artistically . . .
" Even Breen called it
"superb entertainment" and only suggested minor changes. Some critics however, " . . . objected
to Chaplin's concluding speech . . . " which said: "Now let us fight
to free the world--to do away with national barriers--to do away with greed,
hate, and intolerance."[69] Chaplin was born in London and came to the
U.S. in 1910. He had already been
criticized " . . . during WWI . . . for not returning to Europe for
service in the armed forces . . . "
Also, the fact that in all his " . . . years of U.S. residence he
never acquired American citizenship was broadly resented." Chaplin was also " . . . among the
first to advocate the opening of a second front in Russia . . . "[70] Clearly, his film was, at minimum, a
personal statement of propaganda.
Also,
in 1940, Paramount's Arise My Love
portrays " . . . two American reporters in Europe as WWII impends. Backdrops include the Spanish Civil War and
the sinking of the Athenia."[71] Also that year, 20th Century-Fox released Night Train or Night Train to Munich (actually a British production) starring Rex
Harrison, Margaret Lockwood and Paul Henreid.
The story was about " . . . a scientist's daughter (who) saves a
valuable formula from the Nazis . . . [w]ith the help of the secret service . .
. " Carol Reed directed.[72] Paul Henried played " . . . the Gestapo
agent . . . "[73]
Another
of the early " . . . anti-Nazi pictures from Hollywood, Hitchcock's Foreign Correspondent (produced by
Walter Wanger--1940), received a remarkable accolade, being described as 'a
masterpiece of propaganda' by no less an authority than Goebbels."[74] The film was about " . . . an American
reporter in pre-WWII London who gets involved with a Nazi spy ring and the
kidnapping of a European political figure (played by Albert Basserman)."[75] Another propaganda piece, 20th Century-Fox's
The Man I Married (1940) starred
Francis Lederer, Joan Bennett, Lloyd Nolan and Anna Sten in an " . . .
anti-Nazi film about an American girl married to a German-American. They visit Germany in '38 and she sees her
husband fall for Hitler's doctrines." Irving Pichel directed.[76]
Warner
Bros. also released Calling Philo Vance
in 1940. The film is a " . . .
revamping of The Kennel Murder Case
with the added topical kick of some WW II spying tossed in."[77] Of course, again, all of these films,
clearly propagandistic in nature, were released before the U.S. had entered the
war. MGM's Escape (1940) starred Norma Shearer and Robert Taylor in a story
" . . . about an American trying to get his mother out of a concentration
camp in prewar Nazi Germany."[78] Patricia Erens reports that the film "
. . . spoke out against the horrors of anti-Semitism without ever clearly
identifying the victims."[79]
Mervyn LeRoy, identified by The Film
Encyclopedia as "Jewish", directed.[80]
That
same year, Three Faces West (1940)
starred John Wayne, Sigrid Gurie, Charles Coburn, Spencer Charters and Roland
Varno as the " . . . Duke takes charge of Austrian refugees headed for
resettlement in Oregon during WWII."
Scheuer calls it an "[u]nusual frontier tale, a combination of
western action and anti-Nazi propaganda . . . " Bernard Vorhaus, who had
been born in Germany, directed.[81]
20th
Century-Fox's Four Sons (1940)
starred Don Ameche in a drama " . . . of a Czech family ripped apart by
the Nazi invasion . . . " Steven
Scheuer describes the film as
" . . . an anti-war story." It was also a remake of a silent
classic. Archie Mayo directed for
producer Darryl F. Zanuck.[82]
The
sudden collapse of France in the spring of 1940, " . . . lent credence to
hopes and fears about the possibilities of propaganda, for many observers
attributed the republic's fall to a loss of will, induced in part by Nazi
propaganda."[83] Also, during this period, "President
Roosevelt, the consummate media politician of his day, tried to influence
public opinion through his speeches and his manipulation of the news media. In part because of his efforts, the
non-interventionist position never received equal time or space."[84] Roosevelt, however,
" . . . wanted to avoid anything that
looked like preparation for American intervention in the war before he was
re-elected in 1940."[85] Thus, it appears that Roosevelt used
propaganda to mislead the American people.
In
the summer of 1940 several factors contributed to the development of a
cooperative spirit " . . . between the (film) industry and the Roosevelt
administration. The outcome was an
increasing number of rearmament shorts and sharper portrayals of Nazis in
feature films
. . . The brothers Warner, avid Roosevelt
backers, offered to make any short on preparedness without cost . . . In 1938
Thuman Arnold, the trust-busting assistant attorney general, had filed an
antitrust suit against the five major production and distribution companies . .
. In August 1940 the White House told the Justice Department to settle with a
consent decree; signed in November, it allowed the companies to continue
operations pretty much as they had before." Koppe suggests that " . . . the wily politicians around the
Oval Office were already counting on the boost that favorable movie publicity
would give the president's unprecedented bid for a third term."[86]
On
August 17, 1940, " . . . Germany banned American films from areas under
its control . . . An emboldened Metro (MGM) released the industry's first
(film) essay on the Jewish question in Germany, The Mortal Storm, in 1940.
Directed by Frank Borzage, the picture starred James Stewart, Margaret
Sullivan, and Robert Young. The film
depicts a prosperous university biology professor and his family who are
persecuted because he refuses to teach that Aryan blood is superior to all
other blood types . . . the conflict is set between good Germans and evil Nazis
. . . the film . . . establishes that not all Germans support Nazi
racism."[87] "After their families are split between
Nazis and anti-Nazis after Hitler's takeover in '33, Stewart and Sullivan try
to escape from Germany."[88] George MacDonald Fraser considers the film
" . . . equally uncompromising in depicting the effects of
Nazism in a provincial German town . . .
" Also, Fraser reports that "
. . . as a result MGM productions were banned from the Third Reich."[89] Obviously, the Nazis consider this MGM
offering, propagandistic.
Also,
in August of 1940, " . . . FDR asked Nicholas Schenck, president of Loew's
(parent of MGM), to make a film on defense and foreign policy. By mid-October Eyes of the Navy . . . " was released accompanied by the
promise of " . . . a studio executive . . . " that it " . . .
would win the president thousands of votes . . . Schenck's interest may have
been personal as well as patriotic."
As noted earlier, "[h]is brother Joseph, head of Twentieth
Century-Fox, was convicted of income tax evasion. President Roosevelt asked Attorney General Robert Jackson to let
the Studio chief off with a fine, and so did Roosevelt's son James, to whom
Joseph Schenck had lent $50,000 . . . Jackson insisted on a jail sentence. Schenck served four months before being
paroled to the studio lot."[90] Should such a chain of events occur today, a
huge scandal would likely develop.
As
the American defense buildup gathered steam in 1940 and 1941, " . . .
Hollywood increasingly found subjects at home.
Each arm of the military enjoyed its moment of silvered glory in such
productions as I Wanted Wings (1941), Dive
Bomber (1941), Flight Command
(1940), Navy Blues (1941), Buck Privates (1941), and Tanks a Million (1941) . . . the application
of movie glamour and its repetition probably helped create a favorable
impression of the armed forces . . . The White House was pleased. In a message to the annual Academy Awards
banquet in February 1941, Roosevelt thanked the industry for its 'splendid
cooperation with all who are directing the expansion of our defense forces,'
and appealed for continued support. The administration found Hollywood more
cooperative than radio, or particularly, the press."[91] It is quite fair, however, to question whether
the movie colony was motivated by patriotism or by its own self-interests which
could be aided significantly by the power of the White House.
Through
1941 " . . . Hollywood films made a distinction between the Nazis and the
German people. Four Sons (1940) depicts a family split by its attitude to Nazism .
. . Escape (1940) and I Married a Nazi (1940) both contrasted
good and evil Germans . . . Chaplin's The
Great Dictator made it clear that not all Germans were Jew-hating
Nazis." But when " . . . Twentieth Century-Fox submitted Dudley
Nichols' adaptation of Geoffrey Household's Rogue
Male in March 1941, the . . . film characterized all Nazis as 'brutal and
inhuman people' while all Englishmen were 'sympathetic characters.'" Breen felt the film might be accurately
characterized as "inflammatory propaganda" and the " . . .
studio removed some of the more brutal scenes."[92]
In
1941, Paramount's World Premiere starred
John Barrymore and Frances Farmer in a " . . . satire on Hollywood
openings (that) involves some Nazis assigned to see that producer Barrymore's
film never opens." Ted Tetzlaff directed for producer Sol Siegel.[93] That same year, 20th Century-Fox released Confirm or Deny, starring Don Ameche and
Joan Bennett.
The story was about a "[w]ar correspondent
(who) finds love in a London blackout . . . "[94] Archie Mayo directed.
Also,
in 1941, the Warner Bros. film Dangerously
They Live (1941) told the story of
" . . . an English lady spy (who) is
sidetracked by an auto accident . . . (and) American Nazi sympathizers try to
uncover her secrets." Steven
Scheuer says the film is " . . . [p]ropaganda-plus . . . "[95] Another 1941 release, King of the Zombies was " . . . about a zombie-maker who's
raising a manageable group of the living dead so they can fight for the Germans
in WWII." Jean Yarbrough directed.[96] In Blue,
White and Perfect (1941) detective Michael Shayne " . . . gets in the
war effort by chasing foreign agents who've been stealing industrial
diamonds."[97]
Warner's
Underground (1941) starred Jeffrey
Lynn and Phillip Dorn in a " . . . melodrama about the underground in Nazi
Germany . . . (the) story of people risking their lives to create secret
broadcasts under the German's noses." Vincent Sherman directed for
producer William Jacobs.[98] Universal released its Paris Calling (1941), starring Elizabeth Bergner, Basil Rathbone,
Randolph Scott, Lee J. Cobb and Gale Sondergaard. The film was about " . . . a woman (who) learns that her
husband may be playing footsie with the bad buys . . . [w]hile those Nazis are
goose-stepping all over Paris . . . " Steven Scheuer again labels this
film "[p]ropanganda-plus . . . " Edward L. Marin directed for
producer Charles K. Feldman.[99]
As
George Frazer reports, "[t]here was a natural concern in Washington that
propaganda should not be too overt while America was still officially neutral,
and no doubt The Mortal Storm, Confessions of a Nazi Spy, and even
Betty Grable in A Yank in the RAF'
caused consternation in isolationist circles and fury in Berlin; they were
meant to."[100] Despite such concerns, the anti-fascist,
anti-Nazi Hollywood films kept coming.
UA's 1941 contribution to the cause, So
Ends Our Night starred Fredric March, Maragret Sullavan, Glenn Ford,
Frances Dee and Erich von Stroheim. It
was a " . . . drama of refugees from the Nazis traveling from country to
country without passport." John Cromwell directed for producers David L.
Loew and Albert Lewin. The script was
based on a novel by Erich Maria Remarque.[101] Also, in 1941, the Walter Wanger produced Sundown was released. It starred Gene Tierney, Bruce Cabot and
George Sanders in the story of the " . . . British in Africa (who) receive
the aid of a jungle girl in defeating the attempts of the Nazis to take over."
Henry Hathaway directed.[102]
By
March of 1941, with FDR re-elected and the Blitz against Britain still raging,
" . . . interventionists pushed for a strong propaganda agency. They argued that conscription, the recently
passed Lend-Lease bill, and a military buildup were not enough."[103] As U.S. Secretary of the Interior Harold
Ickes stated: "I do not believe that armaments will be of much use to us
if we do not have the will to use them and an understanding of why we are
expected to use them."[104] The administration's efforts were " . .
. augmented by private anti-isolationist groups." One of the more militant of such groups was
" . . . Fight for Freedom
. . . composed of interventionist writers,
journalists, and clergymen. FFF sought
an immediate declaration of war against Germany . . . by mid-1941 FFF's message
could be seen in countless newspapers and magazines, heard on nationwide radio
hookups, and encountered at public rallies, petition drives, and street corner
rallies. FFF tried to discredit major
isolationist figures by . . . " using the extremely vicious tactic of
" . . . giving them 'the image of a Nazi, a Fascist sympathizer, or a dupe
of the Axis.'"[105] These were the same extremist tactics that
came back to haunt the Hollywood liberals/interventionists after the war.
The
FFF's executive director was Ulric Bell, " . . . the aggressive former
Washington bureau chief of the . . . Louisville Courier-Journal. He later joined the Office of War
Information in 1942 and carried his sharply anti-isolationist views to
Hollywood, where he exercised great influence as OWI's overseas representative
from late 1942 through 1943."[106]
By
mid-1941, still prior to U.S. entry into the war, the movies crossed another
threshold. They began making " . .
. interventionist pitches by analogy. In
A Yank in the R.A.F. (1941) and International Squadron (1941) . . .
" the American film characters " . . . were so aroused by Britain's
peril that they joined the Royal Air Force to take an active part in the fight
against Nazism."[107] International Squadron
starred Ronald Reagan " . . . in the RAF changing from an irresponsible
bum to a great hero." Berlin born
Lothar Mendes directed for Warner Bros.[108] About this same time, back in the real
world, Germany invaded Russia (June 22, 1941).[109]
The
grandest development of the above referenced interventionist film pitches by
analogy " . . . was Warner's Sergeant
York, which premiered at the Astor Theatre in New York on July 1,
1941. This picture purported to be the
story of Alvin York, a former pacifist who became an instant hero in World War
I when he killed some twenty German soldiers and captured 132 others in the
Argonne." Jewish film pioneer
Jesse L. Lasky[110] had been trying to get
York " . . . to star in a picture on his exploits . . . " for some
time, and in 1940 " . . . Lasky again approached the aging hero, telling
him that a film about his life would be an inspiration to young men undergoing
the same crisis of conscience he had experienced. York agreed when Lasky delivered $50,000 for the Bible school
(York) . . . wanted to build and gave him script control . . . " Once the film was completed, Hollywood and
Washington
" . . . exploited Sergeant York for all it was worth. Warners built a huge publicity campaign around the film (and) . .
. York was whisked to the White House for an audience with Roosevelt . . . For
young men who got the message that they, like York, should go off and fight for
democracy, the army was ready with an eight-page pamphlet on the hero and a
hard sell of recruitment material."[111] There is hardly no clearer example of a
propagandistic Hollywood film.
As
Custen reports, the " . . . larger message of . . . (Sergeant York) is one of
anti-isolationism." The film
" . . . suggests that, in the year America entered the war, there is no
such thing as neutrality . . . "[112] "As audiences flocked to see Sergeant York, in the summer of 1941
the isolationists came after Hollywood in earnest." Senator Burton K. Wheeler, Democrat from
Montana, " . . . charged that the studios were forcing employees to attend
pro-war rallies." (Darryl Zanuck
had in fact led a column of extras
" . . . to an interventionist rally at the Hollywood Bowl." Also, on " . . . August 1 Senator
(Gerald P. Nye, of North Dakota) . . . launched a full-dress attack in a
national radio speech . . . " saying the movies
' . . . have ceased to be an instrument of
entertainment . . . .' but have become agents of propaganda designed to ' . . .
rouse the war fever in America.' . . . Nye considered the interventionist
message especially insidious in motion pictures because, expecting
entertainment and not politics, audiences had their guard down . . . "[113] Of course, that reminds of the previously
expressed sentiment that the most dangerous propaganda is that which we do not
realize is propaganda.
The
opening scenes of the 1941 20th Century-Fox release Man Hunt were set in Nazi Germany with " . . . Captain Alan
Thorndyke (Walter Pidgeon), a famous big-game hunter who has grown bored with
killing animals. To add a bit of spice
to his life he decides it would be 'amusing to sight a rifle at the bridge of
Adolf Hitler's nose . . . But his sport quickly turns sour when he is captured
by the Gestapo." After being
" . . . [b]eaten and tortured . . . Thorndyke escapes. Now the hunter becomes the hunted . . . In
the end Thorndyke secretly parachutes into Germany to begin his quest in deadly
seriousness."[114]
This film appears to be a blatant attempt by
Hollywood to suggest to someone in this film's potential audience that killing
Hitler would be great sport. And,
again, the film was released before the U.S. entered the war. It was directed by Vienna-born Fritz Lang .
In
the meantime, Senator Nye saw two " . . . forces behind the propaganda
pictures. One was the Roosevelt
administration, which he believed pressured Hollywood to 'glorify' war so that
the public would readily accept intervention.
The other element was monopoly control . . . " of the U.S. film
industry. "He reasoned that the
industry was dominated by a handful of men, who allowed only their own views to
grace the sc