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.
34S2 COMMUNISM IN HOLLYWOOD MOTION-PICTURE INDUSTRY It is the lack of Marxism which has deprived the play of its fundamental social truth. And then he also stated: It is regrettable to see a left writer proceeding on an utterly false premise, portray as doomed objects of decay that very middle class which will be enlisted as a vigorous ally in the growing people's front against fascism and war. Now, how do yon explain the difference in the reviews from Decem- ber of 1935, from both the Daily Worker and the New Masses, and the reviewers from both Daily Worker and the New Masses in Febru- ary of 1936? Mr. Odets. I can explain it only in that way, that there seems to have been, when a playwright or valuable w T riter presents a new work, there would be a review and then there would seem to be conferences about the review and then they would send out another reviewer to make a reevaluation if they thought that was necessary. This, of course, was with the obvious intention of binding the writer to the Communist Party, and the Marxist world point of view. So that ac- tually here again is Burnshaw recommending that if I were a better Marxist I would be a better playwright and a better constructor of plays. There is also a horrifying review by James Farrell, in a Communist publication, of Paradise Lost. He says it is a burlesque of my previous work. "The lines are gags. I don't understand how r he could have written a play so consistently, so ferociously bad. It is mistitled. It should be known as Lay Down and Die."' This is from Partisan Review and Anvil, which was another magazine like the New- Masses in those days. Mr. Tavenner. What w\as the date ? Mr. Odets. The date was February 1936. Mr. Tavenner. And in all of these publications the Communist Party seemed to have changed its line in its approach to your work between December 1935 and February 1936. Mr. Odets. There they are, there is one contradicting the other. Mr. Tavenner. But they are consistent as to the time of contra- diction. Mr. Odets. There were contradictions in this one. Mike Gold w T ould write a contradiction of this one, so you might end up with five or six reviews of two plays. You have mentioned two and I have men- tioned two, and that makes four. I vaguely remember Mike Cold answering James Farrell and saying he was much too harsh, that it was a beautiful play. Now we have five reviews of the play. It was a very hectic and tumultuous time. However, I believe that the intention is clear through all of these, "Let us not chase this young writer away. Let us reconsider. Let us make him reconsider. If he is not Marxist enough, let us try to teach him. Let us try to show T him." I would think such intention was clear through all of these views. Some of these people are rascals, but on the other hand some of them were people of high seriousness and integrity in their feelings. Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with Herbert Kline? Mr. Odets. Yes. I met him. I met him as an editor of a magazine called New Theater. I knew him. Mr. Tavenner. After you went to Hollywood, did you have occa- sion to contact Herbert Kline there ?