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

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

COMMUNISM IN HOLLYWOOD MOTION-PICTURE INDUSTRY 2347 and Bennet Cerf, and Clifton Fadiman. I don't know anything about this committee. Mr. Tavenner. You notice there also the name of Mary Virginia Farmer? Mr. Blankfort. Yes, sir. Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with her? Mr. Blankfort. I think—I know I was, but I am trying to remem- ber under what circumstances. I think she was an actress whom I met who may have appeared in some plays. Mr. Tavenner. And John Howard Lawson? Mr. Blankfort. Yes, sir. Mr. Tavenner. Do you know whether either of those persons were members of the Communist Party? Mr. Blankfort. No, sir; I didn't. I think this list characterizes the spirit of the times. There were people whom we now know as Communists there, and there are people quite unlike the others, Charles Angoff and others. I don't want to go on reading all the names, but I think an examination of this list would show at that time people who were Communist Party members, as we now know, people who were generally sympathetic, .people who were liberals, people who were interested only in the theater, and that is the point about this. This was the National Committee against Censorship of the Theater Arts. These were the people interested in the fight against censorship. Now, if this was a Communist-front organization, it was very clever, because who in the theater is not interested in fighting against censor- ship ? This was organized by the Communist Party ? Mr. Tavenner. Of course, every Communist front is made up of persons who are not members of the Communist Party as well as those who are. If there were only Communist Party members it would not be a front; it would be a Communist group. Mr. Blankfort. That is right. I understand that. Mr. Walter. What attempt was being made at that time to impose any sort of censorship ? Mr. Blankfort. I don't remember the detail of the theater at that time, sir. What I recall, as you ask the question, is something by O'Neill, by Eugene O'Neill; it may have been some play of his that was—I don't recall the details, in fact, back in the period 1935 in the theater. Mr. Tavenner. I show you a photostatic copy of the letterhead of the American Society for Technical Aid for Spanish Democracy. According to information in the files of this committee, some of this technical aid was the recruiting of Americans to fight in the Loyalist Army during the Spanish Civil War. The name of Michael Blankfort appears as a member of the board. Will you tell the committee how this organization was formed, its purposes, and how your support of it was solicited ? Mr. Blankfort. Mr. Tavenner, there are two things about this: One is that I never attended as a member of the board, I never at- tended as a member of the committee, I have no recollection of an}'- body asking for my name, or giving it. That is one thing. And the other thing that I want to say is that if I had been asked I would have given it, so there it is.