Communist infiltration of Hollywood motion-picture industry : hearing before the Committee on Un-American activities, House of Representatives, Eighty-second Congress, first session (1951)

418 COMMUNISM IN MOTION-PICTURE INDUSTRY article he wrote for the New Masses on freedom of thought which was so widely discussed. Mr. Tavenner. It is your view that this incident you have described had a very strong effect upon Albert Maltz ? Mr. Dmytryk. I know unquestionably it did, because I talked to him about it, and he was very much concerned with this effort to con- trol the thought of members. So he wrote the article which he later had to repudiate or get out of the party, and he chose to repudiate it. Adrian Scott was also concerned, and he thought we should have a meeting with John Howard Lawson and discuss the broad subject with him. We had luncheon with John Howard Lawson at the Gotham Cafe in Hollywood. It was a very unsatisfactory meeting. John Howard Lawson was very uncommunicative; he would not ex- plain his actions, would give no reason for them. He said we ob- viously showed we could not accept party discipline, and if we felt that way it would probably be better that we get out of the party. We made no official decision at that time. Adrian Scott was loath to make any decision. I never attended any meeting after that. So although that was not an official getting out of the party—very few write letters of resignation or anything of that kind—I never attended any other meeting of the Communist Party as such. Mr. Tavenner. Have you anything further to say regarding the point three that you mentioned, as to the most important of the aims and purposes of the Communist Party in Hollywood? Mr. D3iytryk. I don't believe there is anything more I can say ex- cept to say that in Hollywood they have failed. I feel sure that the Communist Party is now a completely ineffective element in Holly- wood life. Mr. Tavenner. I have been rather struck with some of the testimony here as to the station in life and the measure of success that various people apparently had when they became members of the Communist Party. What appeal was there in the Communist Party which aided them in recruiting members? How was it that individuals—for instance, such as Jarrico, as to whom there has been testimony that he was a member of the Communist Party—how was it they would become members? Mr. Dmytryk. The answer to that question is rather involved, again. However, I would like to talk about it a little bit, because I think there are many misapprehensions about the type of people who become Communists. This is particularly true of Hollywood. Writers are, of course, traditionally concerned with people. These are the bones of their work. To understand people properly they have to understand the society in which they live and the economic condi- tions under which they live. So any writer worthy of the name studies these problems. Probably he becomes a writer because he is a humani- tarian. There is at least a streak of altruism and idealism in him. So they usually come in contact with Communists more than the aver- age person. Most of these people do not come from poor backgrounds of poverty and deprivation. Most of them come from good back- grounds. They become troubled about poverty, especially where there is such a discrepancy, where a man making $2,500 a week is working next to a man making $25 a week. They consider this unfair. It is a characteristic purely of Hollywood.