Are You Now, Or Have You Ever Been The Front for a Blacklisted Writer? May 7, 2009 Joshua Altman Professor Becker

BEHIND THE BLACKLIST

In 1947 the Cold War helped to create an Iron Curtain across Europe and a Red

Terror across the United States. Film, centralized in Hollywood, California fell first under suspicion of communism, and the motion picture industry became the target of congressional investigation. Actors, directors, and producers in Hollywood, including then actor and future president Ronald Reagan, accused ten of their peers of Communist or leftist leanings. These ten entertainers testified before the House Committee on Un-

American Activity [HUAC] on September 23, 1947 as the first unfriendly witnesses.

Alvah Bessie, Herbert Biberman, Lester Cole, Edward Dmytryk, Ring Lardner Jr., John

Howard Lawson, Albert Maltz, Samuel Ornitz, Adrian Scott, and Dalton Trumbo became immortalized as the Hollywood Ten. Congressional investigations nearly destroyed the film careers of these ten men; however in a way that is not properly appreciated, they managed to find outlets for their work by fighting for free speech and by submitting their scripts under the names of writers cleared by HUAC.

HUAC began its investigations with its creation in 1938 only to have them held up by World War II 1. During the pre-war HUAC years, entertainment film was a largely unregulated industry. Unlike radio and then television, people enjoyed movies on film reels in large movie palaces and not by tuning their receiver to the proper government licensed frequency in their own home. Early in the history of the medium motion

1Gladchuk, John J. Reticent Reds: Hollywood Communists, the HUAC Purge, and the Seeds of Social Revolution (1935-1953). Fullerton, CA: California State University, Fullerton, n.d. http://proquest.umi.com.proxygw.wrlc.org/pqdweb?index=1&sid=3&srchmode=2&vinst=PROD&fmt=6& startpage=1&clientid=31812&vname=PQD&RQT=309&did=766838601&scaling=FULL&ts=1233082042 &vtype=PQD&rqt=309&TS=12 (accessed January 27, 2009).1.

-1-

pictures’ detractors saw it as subversive; it was the first “interactive” mass media, in that it involved more than reading 2. When the Hollywood Ten appeared in front of Congress in 1947, the Supreme Court did not consider motion pictures as protected first amendment speech, based on the Supreme Court 1915 decision Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio which stated

They [movies] are mere representations of events, of ideas and sentiments published and known, vivid, useful and entertaining no doubt, but, as we have said, capable of evil, having power for it, the greater because of their attractiveness and manner of exhibition… It was this capability and power to require censorship before exhibition, as it does by the act under review. We cannot regard this as beyond the power of government. 3

Until 1952, when the Supreme Court overturned Mutual Film Corporation , the government’s power to censor movies remained intact.

The House of Representatives tried numerous times to instigate investigations into

Un-American activity after the October Revolution in 1917. In 1938, Congressmen

Martin Dies and Samuel Dickstein introduced a resolution to “investigate ‘the extent, character, and object of un-American propaganda activities in the United States. 4’” Dies did not intend to legislate, seeing that Congress could not do so effectively, but to expose subversive activity and allow the American people to pass their verdict.

2 Starr, Paul. The Creation of the Media: Political Origins of Modern Communications. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2004.295.

3 McKenna, Joseph. Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio. Supreme Court of the United States. February 23, 1915. Retrieved March 23, 2009. http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxygw.wrlc.org/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true &risb=21_T6120536476. 10.

4 O'Reilly, Kenneth. The Bureau and the Committee: A Study of J. Edgar Hoover's FBI, The House Committee on Un-American Activities, and the Communist Issue. Marquette University, 1981. http://proquest.umi.com.proxygw.wrlc.org/pqdweb?index=2&did=749308391&SrchMode=2&sid=4&Fmt =2&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1240967088&clientId=31812 (accessed April 29, 2009).61. -2-

Dies’s committee, on which he did not serve but helped establish, did not begin its inquiry by investigating Hollywood, but by investigating Nazi activities in the United

States. The Committee’s scrutiny of right-wing organizations focused on the German-

American Bund (organization) in concert with the Department of Justice 5. In his dissertation The Bureau and the Committee: A Study of J. Edgar Hoover's FBI, The

House Committee on Un-American Activities, and the Communist Issue, Kenneth

O'Reilly explains how the Committee and FBI director J. Edgar Hoover took different approaches to leftist (communist) and rightist (Nazi) organizations 6.

Censorship remained a tool for the federal government beyond 1952 (albeit a very limited one). As a rule, Congress did not question Hollywood figures who appeared as witnesses about the content in their current work, but for their beliefs, and for what might make it into a future work 7. Congressional hearings focused on the organizations that these people belonged to and for which publications they wrote. Questioning of the unfriendly witnesses did not broach whether a film had themes or was in fact “evil.”

James L. Baughman wrote in his book The Republic of Mass Culture: Journalism,

Filmmaking, and Broadcasting in America Since 1941 that very few writers attempted to incorporate communist ideology into their films. These same writers championed

5 O'Reilly, Kenneth. The Bureau and the Committee: A Study of J. Edgar Hoover's FBI, The House Committee on Un-American Activities, and the Communist Issue. 64

6O'Reilly, Kenneth. The Bureau and the Committee: A Study of J. Edgar Hoover's FBI, The House Committee on Un-American Activities, and the Communist Issue. 66.

7 Baughman, James L. The Republic of Mass Culture: Journalism, Filmmaking, and Broadcasting in America since 1941. 3rd. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press, 2006. 37.

-3-

American capitalism and democracy in their scripts. In cases where writers did attempt to include party ideology with their scripts, they were rarely, if ever successful 8.

Many writers accused of authoring communist films never received another screen credit during their lifetime, though scores continued to write. This does not mean, however, that they never had the opportunity to write another line. Albert Maltz utilized fellow writer and future HUAC witness Michael Blankfort as a front to continue to write and publish scripts. HUAC cleared Blankfort of wrongdoing and Communist ties, thus

Hollywood producers and studio executives allowed him to continue publishing under his own name. The arrangement between Maltz and Blankfort differed from using a pseudonym, since Blankfort was a known industry writer. Maltz used the pseudonym

John B. Sherry at various points throughout his career including on the film “The

Beguiled ,” which was written and produced after the Blacklist 9. The story of Maltz and

Blankfort departs from the image of blacklisted writers who faced banishment from the

Hollywood community and supplants it with the story of two career writers who both continued to work during the Blacklist era.

8 Baughman, James L. The Republic of Mass Culture: Journalism, Filmmaking, and Broadcasting in America since 1941.37.

9 Canby, Vincent. "The Beguiled (1970) April 1, 1971 Clint Eastwood Is Star Of Siegel's 'The Beguiled.'" The New York Times , April 1, 1971. http://proquest.umi.com.proxygw.wrlc.org/pqdweb?index=0&did=79702178&SrchMode=2&sid=1&Fmt= 10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1241574122&clientId=31812 (accessed May 5, 2009).

-4-

SELF-CENSORSHIP Hollywood writers, producers, and directors who populated the unfriendly witness list lost their careers not by punitive measures imposed by Congress, but by the

Hollywood studios in a successful effort to prevent stronger legislative oversight of the industry. “Hollywood” existed under the umbrella of many different organizations, including the Writers Guild, the studio executives, and the various unions which represented actors, producers, and directors. Representatives from each of these groups, lead by the powerful studio executives came together in the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in

New York to issue the Waldorf Statement, effectively beginning the formal self- censorship in Hollywood 10 . Their statement overtly denied employment to the Hollywood

Ten until they would take an oath renouncing their communism, or otherwise redeem themselves. Furthermore, the statement announced that the studios would not employ any individual with Communist leanings, or allegiances to any other subversive organization 11 . Eric Johnston, a key individual responsible for the Waldorf Statement, and President of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) said “Creative work at its best cannot be carried on in an atmosphere of fear. We will guard against this danger, this risk, and this fear 12 .”

10 Palmer, Tim. "Side of the Angels: Dalton Trumbo, the Hollywood Trade Press, and the Blacklist." Cinema Journal 44, no. 4 (Summer 2005): 57-74. http://www.jstor.org.proxygw.wrlc.org/stable/pdfplus/3661125.pdf (accessed April 30, 2009).57.

11 "Hollywood's Response." In McCarthyism: The Great American Red Scare: A Documentary History , edited by Albert Fried, 46. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1997.

12 Doherty, Thomas. Cold War, Cool Medium: Television, McCarthyism, and American Culture. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 2003.

-5-

The statement pledged never to employ “subversives” in the industry’s first steps towards censorship. Executives followed up their document by reissuing pre-World War

II films which joked at the Soviets’ expense, and then produced new anti-communist films 13 . Thomas Doherty, in his book Cold War, Cool Medium: Television, McCarthyism, and American Culture compared the anti-communist films during the Cold War to the anti-Nazi films from World War II. One distinction exists between these two eras, in that during World War II individuals volunteered to work on the anti-Nazi films; during the

Cold War studios relied on “conscripted labor” to produce their anti-communist films 14 .

Representatives from Hollywood organizations, including Emmet Lavery, president of the Screen Writers Guild (predecessor to the Writers Guild of America) testified in front of HUAC. Lavery presented as a friendly witness on behalf of the organization, not to offer a defense for the Ten. He testified that Communists did not control the Guild, and intended to protect the standing of the Guild at the cost of a few of its prominent members 15 .

Blacklisted writers and their supporters found their ultimate protest in using and being fronts.

13 Doherty, Thomas. 22.

14 Doherty, Thomas. 22 .

15 Palmer, Tim. 68.

-6-

ALBERT MALTZ

While some writers and directors found themselves unfairly blacklisted by association, Albert Maltz subscribed to the communist ideology. Hollywood

Communists belonged to “subversive” organizations, including the writers’ union, known as the Screen Writers Guild. Along with many other unions of that era, Congress viewed the Screen Writers Guild as a workers’ organizing group, and as a Communist front.

Maltz held moderate positions compared to other Hollywood Communists, and even other Communists in the United States, in that he sought a cultural reformation rather than the overthrow of the United States government as evidenced by his devotion to the

United States throughout his long career 16 . During his HUAC hearing Maltz demonstrated his loyalty by listing his works, their (positive) impact on American culture, and their government sponsorship. He testified that his novel the “Cross and the

Arrow” received government printing for U.S. soldiers in World War II; his film The

Pride of the Marines premiered in 28 cities under the auspices of the Marines at

Guadalcanal Day Banquets. Another one of Maltz’s films, Destination Tokyo premiered on a U.S. submarine and the Navy adopted it as an official training film 17 .

Hollywood community members joined the Communist Party for various reasons.

For some, it simply provided a sense of belonging among like-minded people, many of

16 Gladchuk, John J. 44.

17 Maltz, Albert, and J. Parnell Thomas Chair. Hearings Regarding the Communist Infiltration of the Motion Picture Industry. Hearings Before the Committee on Un-American Activities House of Representatives. United States Government Printing Office. Washington. 1947. http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxygw.wrlc.org/congcomp/getdoc.365.

-7-

whom worked in the entertainment industry after having migrated from New York and other eastern cities. Membership encouraged connections in a growing city based around one industry, including jobs for writers in Communist newspapers such as New Masses.

The newspaper gave writers the opportunity to write in a way that would get them noticed and provided an entry into film writing 18 . John J. Gladchuk quotes Maltz’s oral history interview taken in the 1970s when Maltz commented on his reasons for joining the Communist Party. “The Communist Party on the American scene stood for humanity’s hope for world brotherhood and peace and social progress; my conscience made me join despite whatever anxieties I had 19 .”Maltz only testified to his motives for joining the Communist Party, declaring that the Hollywood Communist Party held some of the least doctrinal beliefs of any Communist organization in America. Hollywood

Communists focused less on politics and more on “extending democracy 20 .”

“Art is a weapon”

Albert Maltz’s article “What Shall We Ask of Writers”, published in the

Communist paper New Masses and the Daily Worker in 1946, proclaimed that broadly interpreted “art is a weapon 21 .” By 1946 Maltz angered the congressional anti- communists with his known political leanings, but his 1946 article alienated those loyal to the party line with his argument that writers in the party do not simply exist to support

18 Gladchuk, John J. 44.

19 Gladchuk, John J. 56.

20 Gladchuk, John J. 48.

21 Maltz, Albert. "What Shall We Ask of Writers?"351

-8-

the communist cause. Talbot and Zheutlin quote Maltz as saying “But I never considered that I was going to try and use films to express my political attitudes 22 .” Maltz’s article is part of the official congressional record for 1947 preceding his testimony to the House

Committee. Publication of his February 12, 1946 article began the “Maltz Affair,” which

Thom Andersen wrote about in the “Red Hollywood” chapter in “ Un-American"

Hollywood: Politics and Film in the Blacklist Era . The Communist Party saw writers and other creative artists in their ranks as property, a subset of people whose purpose was to promote the Communist agenda in their works 23 . Forcing political messages into scripts was not Maltz’s intent.

Maltz’s article, asserting that he never considered using films to express his political attitudes did not elevate his stature in the eyes of the anti-communists in

Congress and it drew scathing criticism from prominent members of the Communist

Party, especially those in Hollywood. In the two months following his first article, Maltz faced accusations in the pages of New Masses of creating an “artificial, idealist division between art and politics, between artist and citizen 24 .”

Future co-member of the Hollywood Ten Alvah Bessie wrote one of the harshest criticisms of Maltz in the two months following the publication of What Shall We Ask of

Writers. Bessie’s What is Freedom for Writers called Maltz “anti-Marxist;” as a

23 Andersen, Thom. "Red Hollywood." In "Un-American" Hollywood: politics and Film in the Blacklist Era , edited by Frank Krutnik, Steve Neale, Brian Neve, and Peter Stanfield, 225-63. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2007.248.

23 Andersen, Thom. "Red Hollywood." In "Un-American" Hollywood: politics and Film in the Blacklist Era , edited by Frank Krutnik, Steve Neale, Brian Neve, and Peter Stanfield, 225-63. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2007.248.

24 Andersen, Thom. 248.

-9-

prominent member of the Hollywood Communist Community, his dissent from Maltz demonstrated how deeply Maltz enraged the Party 25 . New Masses and another communist publication, the Daily Worker published Maltz’s April 9, 1946 where Maltz altered his opinion on artists and their role in the Communist Party, as he wrote:

I consider now that my article – by what I have come to agree was a one- sided, non-dialectical treatment of complex issues – could not, as I had hoped, contribute to the development of left-wing criticism and creative writing. I believe also that my critics were entirely correct in insisting that certain fundamental ideas in my article would, if perused to their conclusion, result in the dissolution of the left-wing cultural movement 26 .

Andersen quoted Walter Goodman saying Maltz’s letter “read as though it had been translated directly from Russian 27 .” Maltz caved to Party’s pressure making it likely that the same forces could pressure Bessie into writing his article. Maltz’s personal and political activity angered the anti-communists in government, and his first article infuriated the communists in Hollywood. His second article intended to bring him back into the Hollywood community but demonstrably lacked the sincerity and the passion of the first.

25 Bessie, Alvah. "What is Freedom for Writers." In Communism in America: A History in Documents , edited by Albert Fried, 354-56. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1997.354. Bessie’s opinions in “What is Freedom for Writers” are truly his own is questionable as evidenced by the ability for Communist Party leaders to pressure Maltz into publishing his second article.

26 Maltz, Albert. "Moving Forward." In Communism in America: A History in Documents , edited by Albert Fried, 356-59. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1997.357.

27 Andersen, Thom. 248.

-10-

Maltz’ Testimony No testimony from the Hollywood Ten received a warm welcome in the HUAC hearing room, but Maltz began on better terms than most and yet, concluded by being forced out of the hearing room. The Republican Chairman of HUAC, J. Parnell Thomas, permitted Maltz to read his entire prepared testimony, something which he was alone in doing among members of the Hollywood Ten. He testified before Congress that they

[Congress] were attempting to blacklist him from the industry due to his religious and political beliefs 28 .

The ideas held by Maltz and others, he testified, resulted in his appearance before the House Committee on Un-American Activities. Maltz testified “In common with many

Americans, I supported the New Deal. In common with many Americans, I supported, against Mr. Thomas and Mr. Rankin, the anti-lynching bill. I opposed them in my support of the OPA [Office of Price Administration] controls and emergency veteran housing and a fair employment practices law 29 .” During his testimony, Maltz turned the official investigation into a personal mission of revenge by the committee chairman, J. Parnell

Thomas and refused to answer direct questions regarding membership in the Screen

Writers Guild (predecessor to the WGA).

Specifically it was Maltz’s support of the New Deal, significant government spending and increased government control over the economy, which pitted the

Republican leadership against him. The 1946 elections gave the Republicans their first majority in the House of Representatives since before the New Deal. Talbot and Zheutlin

28 Maltz, Albert, and J. Parnell Thomas Chair. 366

29 Maltz, Albert, and J. Parnell Thomas Chair. 365.

-11-

expanded on the role of the New Deal and the Republican vendetta against those who supported the programs.

What Maltz’s scripts were laced with were Roosaveltian visions; they advocated democratic rights, economic security, religious freedom, world peace. During the war these dreams had stirred the nation. But HUAC was intent on branding New Deal thought subversive 30 .

Thomas’s committee found individuals in disagreement with their policies. They acted from their position of influence to induce the greater public, specifically screenwriters into capitulation. The committee’s actions convinced screenwriters to turn in their colleagues, producers to hire individuals based on their political beliefs, and the public to become aware of communist infiltration in the entertainment industry.

MICHAEL BLANKFORT

Michael Seymour Blankfort is a name not known to most Americans, a name not known to many historians, but he was a man who had a distinguished career in the industry, including service on the Board of the National Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science and as president of the Writers Guild of America West (WGAw). As an artist, he wrote many screenplays, as well as fourteen novels. Blankfort held loose ties to the Communist Party, but never claimed official membership.

Like many others in Hollywood, Blankfort originally lived and worked in the

New York Jewish community. After serving in the Marines during World War II he became an anathema in the Hollywood Jewish community by continuing to outwardly

30 Talbot, David, and Barbara Zheutlin. "Before the Blacklist." In Creative Differences: Profiles of Hollywood Dissidents , 3-102. Boston: South End Press, 1978.44.

-12-

practice his faith 31 . Elites in the Hollywood Jewish community regularly hosted

Christmas and Easter parties in their homes, but never a Passover Seder 32 . In his defense to HUAC Blankfort said “I was a member of organizations which had taken decided stands against Communists: The American-Jewish Congress, the B’nai B’rith, and the

American Veterans Committee 33 .” He argued that his deeply held faith prevented him from being a Communist, which by definition included atheism. Maltz’s family came from the New York Jewish Community; however he assimilated into the secular society of Hollywood. Much of the evidence about Blankfort’s life stems from his forty-four pages of congressional testimony to HUAC in 1952. While Maltz’s notoriety came as one of the Hollywood Ten, and as one of the first to face the consequences of anti-communist investigation, Blankfort’s testimony occurred after a new Congressional election with a new Congressional leadership resulting from the Democratic Party regaining control of the House of Representatives in 1948.

Outside of the changes in the composition of Congress, American culture changed in the years between Maltz’s and Blankfort’s testimonies, including the increased saturation of television in American homes. Pricilla Taylor wrote in Culture and Mythos:

Remembering the Hollywood Blacklist that the new mass medium of television told

31 Gale Reference Team. Biography-Blankfort, (Seymour) Michael (1907-1982). Contemporary Authors (Biography). Thomson Gale, 2003.

32 Gabler, Neal. An Empire of their Own. New York: Anchor Books, 1988.284.

33 Blankfort, Michael, and John Wood Chair. Communist Infiltration of Hollywood Motion-Picture Industry- Part7. Hearings Before the Committee on Un-American Activities House of Representatives. United States Government Printing Office. Washington. 1952. http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxygw.wrlc.org/congcomp/getdoc.2361.

-13-

Americans “what they ought to know and how they ought to live 34 .” She concluded that in 1950 a dramatic increase in home television use occurred, providing a new outlet for the Democratic congress to reach Americans. The new medium provided tools to

Blankfort that Maltz and the other members of the Hollywood Ten lacked, specifically the ability to reach millions of people in their homes.

TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS

Two types of witnesses typified HUAC hearings, categorized as friendly and unfriendly. Friendly witnesses such as Ronald Reagan “named names,” or gave the committee new people to subpoena to testify; and unfriendly witnesses (including Maltz) spoke vehemently in their own defense and challenged the constitutionality of the committee. Blankfort fit neither of these molds. He honestly and directly presented the details of his career to the Committee and how he came to be named as a Hollywood

Communist.

Blankfort found himself in front of the committee as the direct result of another writer’s friendly testimony. Louis Francis Budenz submitted Blankfort’s name during his own hearing. Budenz named Blankfort for his work at Communist publications, including the Daily Worker, and the New Masses. Working for these publications implied membership in the party, and “membership” in the party provided an invitation to testify.

34 Taylor, Pricilla. Culture and Mythos: Remembering the Hollywood Blacklist. Carpinteria, CA: Pacifica Graduate Institute, 2005. http://proquest.umi.com.proxygw.wrlc.org/pqdweb?index=5&sid=1&srchmode=2&vinst=PROD&fmt=6& startpage=1&clientid=31812&vname=PQD&RQT=309&did=994230441&scaling=FULL&ts=1233081890 &vtype=PQD&rqt=309&TS=12 (accessed January 27, 2009).135.

-14-

In his testimony Blankfort calmly denied his membership in the Communist

Party, and professed honesty in his “independent position 35 .” Blankfort’s testimony was the result of being accused of communist activity, and not the result of his desire to

“name names.” Traditionally the first question posed to the witness was “Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?” During his testimony he admitted to communist activity, but not party membership; he confessed to writing for

Communist publication, but not supporting the party line; he gave HUAC no information that they did not already possess.

As a writer for Communist publications, Blankfort subscribed to the view Maltz outlined in 1946 in his article “ What Shall We Ask Of Writers ”. Blankfort reviewed plays for the publications; he was given his tickets by mail, sent in his articles via mail, and rarely if ever, according to his testimony, went to their offices 36 . Since he did not tailor his reviews to the party line and he neglected to frame his reviews into the “political theory of the moment” the New Masses and Daily Worker dismissed Blankfort as a contributor 37 . Blankfort accepted his termination and then proceeded with his career.

At the conclusion of the testimony, the Committee would informally deliver a verdict regarding the witness; their verdict provided the rest of the Hollywood community, and the larger American public, a quick summation regarding “Was he friendly? Was he unfriendly?” Usually the committee accomplished this end by thanking

35 Blankfort, Michael.2331.

36 Blankfort, Michael. 2332.

37 Blankfort, Michael. 2333. Frames are a tool used by journalists to organize information.

-15-

the witness prior to departure. Shortly before Blankfort’s testimony concluded, the following dialogue occurred between Congressman Jackson and Blankfort:

Mr. Jackson: Do you feel, Mr. Blankfort that in light of the identification made before the committee by Mr. Budenz, and in light of the many suspect groups with which you have been associated that the committee was doing the proper thing in asking you to appear before it to explain the situation? Mr. Blankfort: I certainly do, I appreciate the opportunity. 38

Blankfort’s testimony concluded with Congressman Walter telling the witness:

Very well. We appreciate your cooperation and it is only because of the willingness of people like you to come here and give us a full statement of the facts as you know them that we are able to point up to the American people the danger of this conspiracy. We are deeply appreciative of your efforts to assist us. The witness is excused from further attendance. 39

While not an official “thank you” from the committee, it provided enough cover to keep

Blankfort off the Blacklist and to allow him to continue writing for himself, eventually providing cover for Maltz, and gave him a long and distinguished career.

38 Blankfort, Michael. 2363

39 Blankfort, Michael. 2365.

-16-

“BROKEN ARROW”

Before “Broken Arrow”

Blacklisted writers continued practicing their craft; only they could not do so under their own names. Albert Maltz, as one of the most well known writers on the blacklist, published “Broken Arrow” under the name of fellow Hollywood writer Michael

Blankfort. HUAC cleared Blankfort of suspicion in 1952; two years after FOX Studios produced the screenplay “Broken Arrow”, which was based on the novel “Blood

Brother” by Elliot Arnold.

Maltz worked on the script for many years prior to its 1950 production and official credit to Blankfort; evidenced by a draft dated December 10, 1948 (one year after his blacklisting) which contained Maltz’s handwritten notes. What stands out in the

“Broken Arrow” script is how some of its ideas developed from Maltz’s 1934 play

“Peace on Earth: An Anti-War Play in 3 Acts ,” and the apparent parable that could be drawn between “Broken Arrow” and U.S.-Soviet Relations.

Peace on Earth

Maltz began “Peace on Earth” with characters debating the comparative demerits of striking workers 40 . The anti-war aspect of the play developed from the notion of the early strike of longshoremen refusing to ship munitions, what the character Mac calls an

40 Sklar, George, and Albert Maltz. Peace on Earth: An Anti-War Play in 3 Acts. Binghamton, NY: Vail- Vallou Press, INC., 1933.4.

-17-

expression of free speech against the war 41 . “Peace on Earth” exhibits many of the themes present in Maltz’s HUAC testimony, including the right to free speech, and the constitutionality of government action. The play’s second scene has a police officer, an agent of the government saying “never mind the Constitution,” a sentiment he accused

Congressmen Thomas of holding during his hearing in 1947 42 .

“Peace on Earth,” which was produced by the Theater Union in New York City, is an ideological prologue to the blacklist and the themes presented in Broken Arrow in

1950. Maltz, circa 1934, presents the impact strikers have on their communities and how the intellectuals personified through the professors and other academics present in the play sympathize with the strikers and ultimately find themselves in legal trouble. As a member of the Hollywood elite Maltz possessed the power to influence the ideas of millions of Americans. HUAC strangled those who possessed influence over society at large, either permanently through blacklisting or through fear of being named and then called as a witness. Those who possessed similar power in “Peace on Earth” also found themselves in a disadvantageous position.

The concepts of class and peace play more direct roles in “Peace on Earth” than communist ideologies and the writings of Marx and the doctrines of Lenin. Class consciousness, as demonstrated in the strikers’ chant “Don’t be a traitor to your class” is prevalent, but the play as a whole is not approached from a Marxist unification of workers’ perspective 43 . Throughout the play, there is an understanding of class, and

41 Sklar, George, and Albert Maltz. 10.

42 Sklar, George, and Albert Maltz. 17

43 Sklar, George, and Albert Maltz. 44. -18-

position in society as represented by the professors, university officials, and workers, but the play is not about uniting a single group into single dominating force. Maltz’s play discusses how the social classes interact and can support each other. During his testimony

Maltz refers to a portion of his work specifically by name, but does not list or imply reference to “Peace on Earth 44 .” As this play exists in Maltz’s past, and was familiar to the committee’s members, it influenced the Committee’s perception of him and his testimony.

Communist Propaganda?

Writing prior to the death of Albert Maltz and Michael Blankfort, David Talbot and Barbara Zheutlin wrote:

“But by 1948, nothing with Maltz’s name on it could get filmed in Hollywood; and all traces of the organized left in the movie community were being thoroughly wiped out. The screenwriter’s record successes did not shield him; the Party’s patriotic performance during the war was disregarded. The political current turned against the Hollywood left with a vengeance 45 .”

The Writers Guild of America West did not re-credit “Broken Arrow” to Maltz until July 1, 1991, after the death of both Maltz and Blankfort 46 . Maltz received one of the first corrected credits from the WGAw [for “Broken Arrow”] and set the stage for the nearly 100 future credit corrections to date. Conventional wisdom suggests blacklisted

44 Maltz, Albert, and J. Parnell Thomas Chair. 365.

45 Talbot, David. 41.

46 Writers Guild of America, West. "Corrected Blacklist Credits." Writers Guild of America, West. http://www.wga.org/content/subpage_writersresources.aspx?id=1958 (accessed April 2, 2009).

-19-

writers failed to publish and fell into obscurity; however new evidence uncovered after their deaths demonstrates that notion is far from truth.

Maltz’s article “What Shall We Ask of Writers” and his less than convincing recantation of his article a month later lend credence to the argument that he is telling a compelling story, and not advancing the motives of the Communist Party through his artistic endeavors. Both of Maltz’s articles ran in New Masses in 1946, twelve years after

“Peace on Earth”; a year prior to his blacklisting, and four years prior to “Broken

Arrow.” Maltz held numerous ideologies throughout his life, and it is possible that his beliefs changed from one period to another. During the Blacklist era, despite this vehement opposition to writers being forced into using their position to espouse political beliefs, he never relies on communist ideology but favors a strict constructionist interpretation of the First Amendment in his ardent belief in free speech.

Most likely, without being deliberate in his intent, Maltz included scenes with the potential to be read as references to the United States and Soviet Union relations. These scenes, which provide no direct reference to then-current political events, are part of

Broken Arrow’s story line, which in the author’s Forward in the December 10, 1948 script Maltz began with

This is an historical narrative and the drama is based upon fact. The main events of the story, which occurred in the years 1870-1872, happened as they are related here. The main characters once rode and fought on the earth of Arizona 47 .

47 Maltz, Albert. Blood Brother: A Screenplay Based Upon the Novel by Elliot Arnold. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Historical Society, 1948.Authors Note

-20-

Viewers of the film never get to read the Author’s Forward ; however, it is included in the script. Theater audiences received a substantially similar version of the exposition by the main character Jeffords as he rides on horseback through the Arizona desert. Jeffords narrates:

This is the story of a land…of the people who lived on it in the year 1870…and of the greatest man I’ve ever known. His name was Cochise. He was an Indian, leader of the Chiricahua Apache tribe. I was involved in the story and what I have to tell you happened exactly as I’ll tell it. The only change I’ll make is to put it all in the English language--since some of the people spoke Apache. The events are part of the history of Arizona and they began here, where you see me riding…48

From the Author’s Note, character exposition, and the Maltz’s previous writings, one can assume that he never intended parallels to be drawn between “Broken Arrow” and U.S. Soviet relations and between the film Maltz’s experiences with the Blacklist. In making this assumption, facts which are available in 2009 are drawn upon, but which were not available to political leaders, Hollywood insiders, and audiences in 1950 when the film first appeared. Politicians and Hollywood elites lacked not only concrete evidence of Maltz’s authorship but they also lacked the draft copies of the script, the

Author’s Note, and a comprehensive understanding of Maltz’s political beliefs. These pieces of the puzzle are currently available, altering previous interpretations of the film

The historical records lack sufficient evidence to support the claim that Maltz deliberately included any references to global communism, or communism in the United

States. During his HUAC testimony he said “what I have written has come from the total fabrication of my life,” implying the inclusion of all his life experience in his work, but

48 Maltz, Albert. Blood Brother . 1.

-21-

not the incorporation of a specific ideology, doctrine, or party line to which he belonged 49 . Congressional testimony and articles point to the contrary position that Maltz chose not to incorporate modern day politics into his historical film. In his author’s note, included in the “Broken Arrow” script, Maltz wrote “it would be regrettable if the film did not convey the quality of authenticity present in a documentary and the fascination always contained in the facts of history 50 .”

Officially credited to Michael Blankfort, who possessed loose Communist affiliations, there was little debate about the politics of the film. Upon closer reading,

“Broken Arrow” can be read as a parable to U.S.-Soviet relations, and contains messages about understanding enemies, free speech, and references to Maltz’s blacklisting.

The Agreement

Decades passed between Maltz and Blankfort’s agreement over “Broken Arrow” and their arrangement becoming public knowledge throughout the Hollywood

Community. In 1991, the Los Angeles Times published an article detailing the arrangement and reproduced a copy of the contract between Maltz and Blankfort regarding the authorship of “Broken Arrow”. The article, written by staff writer Terry

Pristin says that Blankfort allowed his name to be used for free. Blankfort made changes requested by studio (FOX) and the producer Julian Blaustein “secretly ran Blankfort’s changes by Maltz 51 .”

49 Maltz, Albert, and J. Parnell Thomas Chair. 364.

50 Maltz, Albert. Blood Brother. Authors Note.

51 Pristin, Terry. "Mending 'Broken Arrow': Writers Guild Considers Award for Blacklisted Screenwriter of 1950s Film." Los Angeles Times , June 29, 1991, sec. F.. -22-

Screenwriter Larry Ceplair led the charge to officially change the screen credit and the Writers Guild of America Award for Best Adapted Screenplay for the film from

Blankfort’s name to Maltz’s, which officially occurred posthumously in 1991. As one of the few individuals knowledgeable of the arrangement in the 1950s, he said for the article: “If this [arrangement] (Pristin’s insertion) had gotten out, it would have killed the careers of both Blankfort and [the producer] Blaustein 52 .” Esther Blankfort, Michael

Blankfort’s widow described her husband’s acting as a front as an “act of courage…an act of friendship 53 .”

The Los Angeles Times reproduced the contract between Maltz and Blankfort which outlined the terms of their arrangement. Specific in the contract between Maltz and

Blankfort are the expectations of fees: $7,500 for the treatment, and another $7,500 plus royalties for the film itself. Blankfort promised 90% to Maltz for doing “the major portion of this work 54 .” The remaining 10% went to Maltz’s agent, and was not kept by

Blankfort, leaving Blankfort with no monetary compensation for his work on “Broken

Arrow,” proving he acted as a front only out of friendship not for payment, as was the case of many other writer/front relationships. Acting as a front defied Hollywood and the law. Blacklisted writers revised scripts, wrote “bootleg scripts” and worked for money instead of screen credit. Hollywood Ten member Dalton Trumbo announced on television on March 3, 1957 that since his blacklisting the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and

52 Pristin, Terry.

53 Pristin, Terry.

54 Pristin, Terry.

-23-

Sciences unknowingly honored him with between one and four nominations 55 . Trumbo’s employers during his blacklisting, which included Kirk Douglas ( Spartacus , 1960) and

Otto Preminger ( Exodus, 1960 ) fought to restore Trumbo’s name to the credits in the final years of the Blacklist.

ON THE LIST

Hollywood leaders invented the Blacklist and Hollywood laymen took the lead in exposing it. The Ten themselves took efforts to ensure that those outside their community knew their story and the happenings in Washington D.C. Hollywood on Trial: The Story of the Ten Who Were Indicted was published in 1948 by Gordon Kahn “in full collaboration with the ten indicted men 56 .”As one of the first public, coordinated efforts by and on behalf of those blacklisted, Hollywood On Trial stands out as one of the defining elements taking a stand against HUAC. Kahn divides his book into four major sections: Attack, Defense, Counter-Attack, and Retreat. Attack and Defense examine

HUAC hearings and testimonies; Counter-Attack and Retreat discuss the reactions of the

Hollywood community affected by the Blacklist.

After returning from their time in prison for contempt of congress, Maltz and the rest of the Hollywood Ten rejoined the movement that they had begun on September 23,

1947. To lead the fight against the Committee and J. Parnell Thomas and John E. Rankin,

55 Doherty, Thomas. Cold War, Cool Medium: Television, McCarthyism, and American Culture. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 2003.232.

56 Kahn, Gordon. Hollywood on Trial. New York: Boni & Gaer, 1948.Untitled page.

-24-

a group of Hollywood directors, actors, and writers formed the Committee for the First

Amendment 57 . In their first public statement shortly after forming, they wrote:

We hold that these hearings are morally wrong because:

Any investigation into the political beliefs of the individual is contrary to the basic principals of our democracy

Any attempt to curb freedom of expression and to set arbitrary standards of Americanism is in itself disloyal to both the spirit and letter of the Constitution 58 .

Leaders of the Hollywood unions, including the Writers Guild of America testified to Congress that their unions were not in the hands of the Communists, and that they would resist any attempt for Communists to take positions of leadership within their unions. Official statements by these unions, reprinted in Hollywood on Trial directly refute the official positions taken by their representatives. The Screen Directors Guild, followed by the Screen Writers Guild adopted a statement saying that investigations into the political beliefs of individuals are an “abuse” of Congresses power. Congress’s investigations targeted an industry with the goal “to silence opposition to their extremist views, in the free medium of motion pictures 59 .”

57 Kahn, Gordon. 138.

58 Kahn, Gordon. 138.

59 Kahn, Gordon.137.

-25-

CONCLUSIONS

Due to the sensitivity surrounding the Blacklist, and the attempts by writers to remain off the list, there is limited evidence of a Hollywood “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. In some cases, the open secret surrounding certain fronts, including those writers with limited English proficiency lends credence to the idea that this was common practice. Maltz investigated numerous other “fronts” prior to deciding on Blankfort, further suggesting that writers relied on one another during this dark period in

Hollywood 60 . To date the WGAw has re-credited nearly 100 scripts by blacklisted writers, lending weight to the argument that an unspoken understanding existed in

Hollywood regarding script submissions.

Being blacklisted is commonly remembered as a career ending position, a place from which no individual ever wrote again, and in most cases this held true, at least when it comes to writing under their own name. Many of these writers never saw credit for their work and justice to their reputation, as the re-crediting process rarely began until after both writer and front died. In the case of Maltz and Blankfort, Blankfort wrote a letter to the WGAw with the intent of sending it one year later, but he died in 1982 before it could be sent.

After imprisonment for contempt of Congress, Maltz spent 11 years in Mexico and wrote as an un-credited writer on two films, The Robe and Short Cut to Hell as well as using a pseudonym for other works ; Blankfort continued to write and serve in the

Hollywood Community in positions of authority, including as President of the Writers

60 Pristin, Terry.

-26-

Guild of America 61 . Despite their bond of friendship before and during “Broken Arrow” they never spoke after Blankfort testified to HUAC, since Maltz believed him to be a friendly witness 62 . On paper, being blacklisted spelled the end of a career. In reality, the blacklisted experience was only slightly different from that of non-blacklisted writers and in some cases provided a more liberating experience. Blacklisted writers chose fronts and continued to write from the shadows which are where many writers lived before and during the blacklist era; while fear forced non-blacklisted writers to tread carefully with their writings and sat in the spotlight far outside of the background typical of writers.

61 Writers Guild of America, West. "Corrected Blacklist Credits."

62 Pristin, Terry.

-27-

Bibliography

Andersen, Thom. "Red Hollywood." In "Un-American" Hollywood: politics and Film in the Blacklist Era , edited by Frank Krutnik, Steve Neale, Brian Neve, and Peter Stanfield, 225-63. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2007.

Baughman, James L. The Republic of Mass Culture: Journalism, Filmmaking, and Broadcasting in America since 1941. 3rd. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press, 2006.

Bessie, Alvah. "What is Freedom for Writers." In Communism in America: A History in Documents , edited by Albert Fried, 354-56. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1997.

Blankfort, Michael, and John Wood Chair. Communist Infiltration of Hollywood Motion- Picture Industry- Part7. Hearings Before the Committee on Un-American Activities House of Representatives. United States Government Printing Office. Washington. 1952. http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxygw.wrlc.org/congcomp/getdoc.

Canby, Vincent. "The Beguiled (1970) April 1, 1971 Clint Eastwood Is Star Of Siegel's 'The Beguiled.'" The New York Times , April 1, 1971. http://proquest.umi.com.proxygw.wrlc.org/pqdweb?index=0&did=79702178&SrchMode =2&sid=1&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=124\ 1574122&clientId=31812 (accessed May 5, 2009).

Doherty, Thomas. Cold War, Cool Medium: Television, McCarthyism, and American Culture. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 2003.

Gabler, Neal. An Empire of their Own. New York: Anchor Books, 1988.

Gale Reference Team. Biography-Blankfort, (Seymour) Michael (1907-1982). Contemporary Authors (Biography). Thomson Gale, 2003.

Gladchuk, John J. Reticent Reds: Hollywood Communists, the HUAC Purge, and the Seeds of Social Revolution (1935-1953). Fullerton, CA: California State University, Fullerton, n.d. http://proquest.umi.com.proxygw.wrlc.org/pqdweb?index=1&sid=3&srchmode=2&vinst =PROD&fmt=6&startpage=- 1&clientid=31812&vname=PQD&RQT=309&did=766838601&scaling=FULL&ts=1233 082042&vtype=PQD&rqt=309&TS=12 (accessed January 27, 2009).

"Hollywood's Response." In McCarthyism: The Great American Red Scare: A Documentary History , edited by Albert Fried, 46. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1997. -28-

Kahn, Gordon. Hollywood on Trial. New York: Boni & Gaer, 1948.

Maltz, Albert, and J. Parnell Thomas Chair. Hearings Regarding the Communist Infiltration of the Motion Picture Industry. Hearings Before the Committee on Un- American Activities House of Representatives. United States Government Printing Office. Washington. 1947. http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxygw.wrlc.org/congcomp/getdoc.

Maltz, Albert. Blood Brother: A Screenplay Based Upon the Novel by Elliot Arnold. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Historical Society, 1948.

Maltz, Albert. "Moving Forward." In Communism in America: A History in Documents , edited by Albert Fried, 356-59. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1997.

McKenna, Joseph. Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio. Supreme Court of the United States. February 23, 1915. Retrieved March 23, 2009. http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxygw.wrlc.org/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do ?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T6120536476.

O'Reilly, Kenneth. The Bureau and the Committee: A Study of J. Edgar Hoover's FBI, The House Committee on Un-American Activities, and the Communist Issue. Marquette University, 1981. http://proquest.umi.com.proxygw.wrlc.org/pqdweb?index=2&did=749308391&SrchMod e=2&sid=4&Fmt=2&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=124 0967088&clientId=31812 (accessed April 29, 2009).

Palmer, Tim. "Side of the Angels: Dalton Trumbo, the Hollywood Trade Press, and the Blacklist." Cinema Journal 44, no. 4 (Summer 2005): 57-74. http://www.jstor.org.proxygw.wrlc.org/stable/pdfplus/3661125.pdf (accessed April 30, 2009).

Pristin, Terry. "Mending 'Broken Arrow': Writers Guild Considers Award for Blacklisted Screenwriter of 1950s Film." Los Angeles Times , June 29, 1991, sec. F.

Sklar, George, and Albert Maltz. Peace on Earth: An Anti-War Play in 3 Acts. Binghamton, NY: Vail-Vallou Press, INC., 1933.

Starr, Paul. The Creation of the Media: Political Origins of Modern Communications. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2004.

Talbot, David, and Barbara Zheutlin. "Before the Blacklist." In Creative Differences: Profiles of Hollywood Dissidents , 3-102. Boston: South End Press, 1978.

Taylor, Pricilla. Culture and Mythos: Remembering the Hollywood Blacklist. Carpinteria, CA: Pacifica Graduate Institute, 2005. -29-

http://proquest.umi.com.proxygw.wrlc.org/pqdweb?index=5&sid=1&srchmode=2&vinst =PROD&fmt=6&startpage=1&clientid=31812&vname=PQD&RQT=309&did=9942304 41&scaling=FULL&ts=1233081890&vtype=PQD&rqt=309&TS=12 (accessed January 27, 2009).

Writers Guild of America, West. "Corrected Blacklist Credits." Writers Guild of America, West. http://www.wga.org/content/subpage_writersresources.aspx?id=1958 (accessed April 2, 2009).

-30-