Best of Elia Kazan

[QUENTIN]

1.) On The Waterfront -10/10
2.) A Streetcar Named Desire -10/10
3.) East of Eden -10/10
4.) America, America -9/10
5.) A Face in The Crowd -9/10
6.) Viva Zapata! -8/10
7.) A Tree Grows in Brooklyn -8/10
8.) Boomerang! -8/10
9.) A Gentleman's Agreement -8/10
10.) Splendor in The Grass -8/10

What are your best/worst/favorite films by this controversial great who brought us Brando?

[Klaus Weasley]

I should see more Elia Kazan movies but the only one I saw I liked a lot: On the Waterfront.

[Sugar Magnolia]

Originally posted by Klaus Weasley
I should see more Elia Kazan movies but the only one I saw I liked a lot: On the Waterfront.

Yeah, me too.

[Hannibal21]

My favorite of his is On the Waterfront, a truly magnificent movie. Brando shines as does Eva Marie Saint. A definite classic!

[Buck Turgidson]

Piss on him.

[Sugar Magnolia]

Originally posted by Buck Turgidson
Piss on him.

Any reason why?

[charliebobo]

Originally posted by Sugar Magnolia
Any reason why?

Wild guess: he was among the first to cooperate with the House UnAmerican Activities Committee in 1952 which led to the Blacklist which ruined many careers in Hollywood because of their political beliefs. He also publicly stated that he had no regrets for that action

Am I right? :D

[Sugar Magnolia]

Originally posted by charliebobo
Wild guess: he was among the first to cooperate with the House UnAmerican Activities Committee in 1952 which led to the Blacklist which ruined many careers in Hollywood because of their political beliefs. He also publicly stated that he had no regrets for that action

Am I right? :D

Well, I didn't know that. Seems like a good reason to piss on him.

[Jerk Shapiro]

Great director. I've only seen On The Waterfront and A Streetcar Named Desire, in my top 10, Streetcar is.


Both 10's, though.

[charliebobo]

Originally posted by Sugar Magnolia
Well, I didn't know that. Seems like a good reason to piss on him.

Yes. Yes it is.

[jenna25]

A Streetcar Named Desire(10/10) is in my top ten!:D


I also love Splendor in the Grass(9/10) and East of Eden(10/10)....

[Buck Turgidson]

He's done some superb work. I love a lot of his films, but as a man, he's a worthless sack of shit.

All you people who used Roman Polanksi as a urinal cake, well, this is my guy in those sweepstakes.

I wouldn't refuse to own any of his films on principle (except On The Waterfront, which is a straight up apologia for his actions, IMHO.) I've seriously thought about picking up Splendor in the Grass, and probably will some day.

Just to end this on a nice note, check out his underrated Wild River, with the dewey fresh Lee Remick and the post-accident Montgomery Clift, in one of his best roles.

(Thanks to charliebobo for outlining the case perfectly.)

[Antonio]

K A Z A N
1. A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE (1951) A+
2. ON THE WATERFRONT (1954) A
3. A TREE GROWS IN BROOKLYN (1945) A
4. EAST OF EDEN (1955) A
5. PANIC IN THE STREETS (1950) B+
6. SPLENDOR IN THE GRASS (1961) B+
7. GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT (1947) B
8. BABY DOLL (1956) B

[Ultrahumanite]

First, my Top 10:

1. A Face In the Crowd
2. On the Waterfront
3. East of Eden
4. A Streetcar Named Desire
5. America, America
6. Boomerang!
7. The Arrangement
8. The Last Tycoon
9. Man on a Tightrope
10. Splendor in the Grass

Originally posted by charliebobo
...he was among the first to cooperate with the House UnAmerican Activities Committee in 1952 which led to the Blacklist which ruined many careers in Hollywood because of their political beliefs. He also publicly stated that he had no regrets for that action

Am I right? :D

As for Elia Kazan and HUAC... Why should he have any regrets for doing what he thought was the right thing to do?

There is a tendency to make the McCarthy hunts a straight black-and-white issue, with the McCarthy people cast as moustache-twirling facists and the accused painted as martyrs with a saint-like glow. I don't see any reason for the man to have apologized for his actions -- he did what he thought was right. The day after his testimony was published in newspapers, he paid for an ad in the New York Times, which read, 'Secrecy serves the Communists. At the other pole, it serves those who are interested in silencing liberal voices. The employment of good liberals is threatened because they have allowed themselves to become associated with or silenced by Communists. Liberals must speak out.' When you consider that the Communists slaughtered tens of millions of innocent people -- millions more than even the Nazis did -- then you cannot criticize a man who did what he could to prevent the perceived spread of it. Kazan joined the Communist Party like a lot of people did in the early 30's because he was concerned about the depression and Hitler's rise, and liked what communists were preaching. But he quit a few years later because the Communist Party (according to his autobiography) "attempted to control thought ... suppress personal opinion ... dictate personal conduct. They habitually distorted and disregarded and violated the truth."

In fact, personal opinion aside, the very idea that Kazan should have been apologetic for his decision to name names, or that he should be denied recognition of his spectacular film and theatre work for it, is a brilliant example of the hideous double-standard that so many people willingly subscribe to -- if you remember, there were protestors at the Oscars that year waving the flag with the hammer and sickle. Should they be abused for showing their support for the Soviet Union, which was the bloodiest regime in history? This system (which the Hollywood Left still refuses to condemn) had already killed over 20 million innocent people by the 1950's. I can't really bring the man to task for exposing members of a closed and secret organization, dedicated by its own admission to the overthrow of the U.S. Constitution through force and deception, and its replacement by a Marxist dictatorship.

Without justifying McCarthy's self-serving aggrandizement and questionable tactics -- there is no way to justify HUAC intimidation and the lack of due process -- it's not a crime to oppose Communism; after all, it is a political philosophy that has spilled more innocent blood in more countries -- all of Eastern Europe, China, Cambodia, Cuba -- than any other I can think of. Furthermore, recent access to Soviet archives reveals that the infiltration of the Communists into Hollywood and the U.S. government at the time was far greater than people were led to believe -- check out the declassified VENONA project, for instance. (there's a great book, The Venona Secrets: Exposing Soviet Espionage and Americas Traitors by Herbert Romerstein and Eric Breindel -- after reading it, I do wish that McCarthy had directed his efforts towards some of the real threats instead of the publicity-generating ones)

As far as the blacklisting is concerned, it's unfortunate that careers were destroyed, but a part of the right of freedom of speech is the responsibility to accept the consequences for what you have said. Kazan certianly did. Just because you have a right to speak your mind does not mean that you have a right to not be criticized or even shunned for doing so. Blacklisting doesn't constitute actual censorship. That implies that you are not free to speak unless someone else furnishes you with the means of conveying your ideas. "Freedom of speech" does not include the right to be provided with a printing press, a microphone, or a movie camera at somebody else's expense. The right of free speech is, simply stated, that you may use your own voice and property to say what you think, and no one may use physical force to stop you. This right of free speech necessarily includes the right not to support ideas you oppose. Private actions such as boycotts or blacklists are based on the legitimate refusal to use your own resources to support those you do not agree with. Because no force is involved, such actions cannot censor anyone, even if the goal is to convince everyone on earth to reject certain ideas or people -- like, say, the Dixie Chicks. A studio's refusal to hire a movie director does not prohibit him from seeking a platform for his views elsewhere, nor does it compel other studios to refuse him employment -- a person can try to convince someone to hire them in spite of their political views, just as someone can try to convince someone else not to hire that person. There is no such thing as "private censorship." A person can decide to use his resources to show all sides of an issue, but he must not be forced to do so -- it must be a personal decision, or it is a meaningless one.

Kazan showed himself to be a man of great integrity during the HUAC trials and during his award acceptance speech -- He didn't give in to his critics. He stayed true to his convictions. He accepted the consequences of his decision -- the protests, the lack of applause, the demonizing in the press -- like a man. I say, bravo.

And on top of that, he was easily in the top twenty greatest directors EVER.

[Buck Turgidson]

You need to read up a bit more on this, pal. Your scenario is interesting. It's also plainly false.

The triggering event here was Congressional hearings, in which people were asked (in violation of their First Amendmant rights) questions about their political beliefs and affiliations. Refusal to comply with these illegal questions resulted in contempt convictions and jail time. This is far, far from the sweet picture you paint.

Talented, emminently qualified people lost their jobs and effectively, their right to earn a living, for their personal political beliefs. Many actually went to jail. Do you understand this? JAIL.

You can spin that any way you want, but it's still wrong and it was still illegal.

Read the First Amendment sometime. Y'know...the one that guarantees free speech and free association?

[Ultrahumanite]

Originally posted by Buck Turgidson
The triggering event here was Congressional hearings, in which people were asked (in violation of their First Amendmant rights) questions about their political beliefs and affiliations. Refusal to comply with these illegal questions resulted in contempt convictions and jail time. This is far, far from the sweet picture you paint.

Nonsense. The very idea that it is illegal for Congress to ask questions about your political beliefs and associations during an investigation of possible espionage and treason is absurd. I think you need to review the United States Constitution yourself, since the one that you dreamed up in your fantasy land is not at all in line with the actual document. At no point does the first amendment make asking you questions about you political affiliations illegal -- not for the government or anyone else -- and I defy you to show me any section or phrase therein that indicates otherwise. I mean, do you even understand the purpose of the HUAC hearings? This was a Congressional investigation! Contempt of Congress (which is to say, refusal to answer questions under oath or the commission of perjury) is a crime. Always has been.

Talented, emminently qualified people lost their jobs and effectively, their right to earn a living, for their personal political beliefs. Many actually went to jail. Do you understand this? JAIL.

When you break the law, you go to jail. Do you understand this? JAIL. This is true whether you are talented and qualified or not. Contempt of Congress is a crime. It is initiated by a resolution reported from the affected congressional committee (in this case, HUAC), which can cite any individual for contempt. The resolution must then be adopted by the House or Senate. If the relevant chamber adopts the contempt resolution recommended by one of its committees, the matter is referred to a U.S. Attorney for prosecution. The U.S. Attorney may call in a grand jury to decide whether or not to indict and prosecute. If prosecuted by the courts and found guilty of contempt, the punishment is up to $1,000 in fines and/or up to one year in jail. Do you understand this? JAIL. And why are contempt resolutions issued? Two reasons: (1) bribing or libeling a Member of Congress, or (2) for reasons of refusing to testify or failing to provide Congress with requested documents or answers.

So don't tell me it's illegal, bub. United States law say differently.
It is not illegal to put someone in jail for contempt of Congress -- especially during an investigation of suspected treason. And if that's not enough, let's look at the Smith Act of 1940:

http://1stam.umn.edu/main/historic/Smith1940.htm

"Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States... or Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof -- Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction...."

Hmmmm... seems pretty clear to me. Or do you need a translation? The successful use of the Smith Act by the Truman administration against the top leaders of the Communist Party drove a large stake into the heart not only of the Party but of every organization in which the Communists had been active and influential. Bravo, I say.

Read the First Amendment sometime. Y'know...the one that guarantees free speech and free association?

I have read it. In fact, let's review it:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

It makes no promise that you will not have to suffer consequences for your decisions to associate or speak freely. It is not an open invitation to do or say anything you wish with impunity. In fact, people face consequences for speaking as they wish (such as being sued for slander or libel, or the famous "fire in the theatre" example) and for associating as they wish (associating with criminals, traitors, thieves, etc.) You, like every other whining, asanine myrmidon, seem to think that you should have all manner of rights and no responsibility after the fact -- so bloody indignant that someone should hold people responsible for their actions. Grow up. Actions have consequences. The price of enjoying rights is the burden of responsibility. You may live in a fantasy world where you can do or say whatever you want and suffer no consequences for it, but I assure you that in the real world, things work much differently.

And while we're reviewing the Constitution and it's amendments, why don't we look at Article III, Section 3:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

Hmmmm. I'd say that joining a secret organization funded by a hostile foreign power and dedicated to the overthrow of the United Staes Government through force and deception certianly qualifies as 'adhering to our Enemies' and 'giving them aid and comfort.' It's certianly a violation of the aforementioned Smith Act.

I mean, do you even understand what the HUAC hearings were about? It was not some random, arbitrary tilting at windmills. It was an effort to root out a deeply embedded treasonous spy ring. Do you understand that? I mean, seriously, do you understand what that means? As we now know -- by the Soviets' own admission -- there was an extensive Communist spy ring operating in the United States at all levels. I mean, the Soviets admitted it a few years ago! At the time, we had decrypted Soviet cables (among other evidence) indicating as much. Those talented, qualified people suffered the consequences of allying themselves with a treasonous organization. Tough cookies.

Actions have consequences.

[Buck Turgidson]

Originally posted by Ultrahumanite
I have read it. In fact, let's review it:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

It makes no promise that you will not have to suffer consequences for your decisions to associate or speak freely. It is not an open invitation to do or say anything you wish with impunity. In fact, people face consequences for speaking as they wish (such as being sued for slander or libel, or the famous "fire in the theatre" example) and for associating as they wish (associating with criminals, traitors, thieves, etc.) You, like every other whining, asanine myrmidon, seem to think that you should have all manner of rights and no responsibility after the fact -- so bloody indignant that someone should hold people responsible for their actions. Grow up. Actions have consequences. The price of enjoying rights is the burden of responsibility. You may live in a fantasy world where you can do or say whatever you want and suffer no consequences for it, but I assure you that in the real world, things work much differently.

And while we're reviewing the Constitution and it's amendments, why don't we look at Article III, Section 3:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or [b]in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

Hmmmm. I'd say that joining a secret organization funded by a hostile foreign power and dedicated to the overthrow of the United Staes Government through force and deception certianly qualifies as 'adhering to our Enemies' and 'giving them aid and comfort.' It's certianly a violation of the aforementioned Smith Act.

I mean, do you even understand what the HUAC hearings were about? It was not some random, arbitrary tilting at windmills. It was an effort to root out a deeply embedded treasonous spy ring. Do you understand that? I mean, seriously, do you understand what that means? As we now know -- by the Soviets' own admission -- there was an extensive Communist spy ring operating in the United States at all levels. I mean, the Soviets admitted it a few years ago! At the time, we had decrypted Soviet cables (among other evidence) indicating as much. Those talented, qualified people suffered the consequences of allying themselves with a treasonous organization. Tough cookies.

Actions have consequences.

All right, fine.

If you think the Smith Act wasn't a violation of the First Amendment, that's your call. If you really think that the CPUSA (the public one, not the various espionage going on) was a threat to the US, at any time...fine, again. If you think that all of these people who had their names slandered and dragged through the mud were not only actual Communists but active participants in any sort of espionage...fine a third time.

You're quite committed to all of this absurdity, so I'm not going to try and dissuade you.

(And the little smartassed reiteration of what I wrote was really funny. You're almost as funny as Ann Coulter.)

And get some time in here before you start telling people to grow up.



EDIT: One last thing, before the mods threaten to close this thread. I did some research just to be sure (I've always found that to be a good idea, myself...)

The aspects you quoted of the Smith Act were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Brandenberg v. Ohio.

Thanks for playing, we have some lovely parting gifts for you...

[Ultrahumanite]

Oh, you did some research. It is a good idea, at that. Unfortunately, you didn't do enough, or you'd know that all those aspects of the Smith Act were not and have never been found unconstitutional, and are in fact still on the books. Only the convictions based on on the teaching of ideas were found unconstitutional -- such as the case you referenced and in Noto v. United States (1961) -- redefining "intent" under the act (''[T]he mere abstract teaching of Communist theory, including the teaching of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action. There must be some substantial direct or circumstantial evidence of a call to violence now or in the future which is both sufficiently strong and sufficiently pervasive to lend color to the otherwise ambiguous theoretical material regarding Communist Party teaching, and to justify the inference that such a call to violence may fairly be imputed to the Party as a whole, and not merely to some narrow segment of it.'') -- and none of which was highlighted in my post. The clause that was highlighted, which makes a felony the acquisition or holding of membership in any organization which advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force or violence, knowing the purposes thereof, remains intact:

Scales v. United States:
"a) The statute was correctly interpreted by the two lower courts. Pp. 221-224 . (b) As construed and applied, the membership clause of the Smith Act does not violate the Fifth Amendment by impermissibly [p*204] imputing guilt to an individual merely on the basis of his associations and sympathies, rather than because of some concrete personal involvement in criminal conduct. Pp. 224-228 . (c) As construed and applied, the membership clause of the Smith Act does not infringe freedom of political expression and association in violation of the First Amendment. Pp. 228-230 ."

According to Findlaw.com: "Advocacy such as the Communist Party engaged in, Justice Harlan wrote for the Court, was unprotected under Dennis v. United States, and he could see no reason why membership which constituted a purposeful form of complicity in a group engaging in such advocacy should be a protected form of association. Of course, ''[i]f there were a similar blanket prohibition of association with a group having both legal and illegal aims, there would indeed be a real danger that legitimate political expression or association would be impaired, but . . . the clause does not make criminal all association with an organization which has been shown to engage in illegal advocacy.'' Only an ''active'' member of the Party--one who with knowledge of the proscribed advocacy intends to accomplish the aims of the organization--was to be punished, the Court said, not a ''nominal, passive, inactive or purely technical'' member."

As for the CPUSA being a threat -- gee, I don't know... an organization that was funded by the bloodiest totalitarian regime of the 20th Century (if not all of history) with the express goal of the overthrow of the US government in favor of a similar totalitarian regime...

I guess I see your point. How could anybody consider that a threat? But then again, totalitarianism has never been my favorite flavor of government. I know everybody doesn't feel that way, but hey -- we just differ on that.

As funny as Ann Coulter? Thanks!

And I'm pretty sure I've got at least 40 years on you -- so I feel pretty qualified to tell whomever I please to grow up.

Elia Kazan was a hero. He stood up against the spread of totalitarianism and he never recanted. Bravo.

[Annie Hall]

Fella's, fella's...take a breather, smoke a cigarette, relax yourselves.


Anyway, A Streetcar Named Desire is my favorite of the few I've seen, but that is mainly due to the incredible performances in it.

[Buck Turgidson]

Originally posted by Ultrahumanite
Only an ''active'' member of the Party--one who with knowledge of the proscribed advocacy intends to accomplish the aims of the organization--was to be punished, the Court said, not a ''nominal, passive, inactive or purely technical'' member."


That's an apt description of most everyone Kazan named, and most of the people who had their careers interrupted.

No one who was ever called before the HUAC in a Holywood-related case would pass muster under that quoted definition, and nothing that Kazan testified about would, either. He came in and recited a list of names, by rote, (most of whom were already known to the Committee), in a public show of obeisance and obsequiousness.

If you're 76, maybe you need to relax a bit.

You get the last word, Pop. I feel a little dirty talking about all of this and have better things to do.

[Ultrahumanite]

Originally posted by Buck Turgidson
That's an apt description of most everyone Kazan named, and most of the people who had their careers interrupted.

No one who was ever called before the HUAC in a Holywood-related case would pass muster under that quoted definition, and nothing that Kazan testified about would, either. He came in and recited a list of names, by rote, (most of whom were already known to the Committee), in a public show of obeisance and obsequiousness.

If you're 76, maybe you need to relax a bit.

You get the last word, Pop. I feel a little dirty talking about all of this and have better things to do.

He was asked if he had known anyone who was a member of the Communist Party. He answered truthfully. Others could have done the same. This was an investigation into suspected espionage, sedition and treason.

The fact is, most of the people who suffered under the HUAC investigations created that suffering for themselves. As you yourself said, some of the people being called before HUAC would not have been and could not have been prosecuted under Smith. So if they had done the right thing, gone in and answered all questions truthfully and completely, this would be a non-issue. The people who went to jail were not jailed under the Smith Act -- the Smith Act was simply the fulcrum point of the investigation. The people who went to jail went to jail -- quite rightly -- for obstruction of justice and contempt of Congress. Instead of standing up, telling the truth, and showing that there was nothing to the whole mess, they decided to pour fuel on the fire by standing in contempt. They decided to cast suspicion on themselves. So if their careers were interrupted or ruined or if they went to jail --- THEY BROUGHT IT ON THEMSELVES.

The truth, they say, shall set you free.

And I'm 69, and that's all I do anymore, is relax. This is relaxing. You should have seen me when I was still running my business.

But it infuriates me when a good man who took a solid moral stance against something as vile as Communism does not get the respect he deserves.