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

4256 COMMUNISM IN HOLLYWOOD MOTION-PICTURE INDUSTRY motion-picture industry is organized, there would be too many factors which would not allow this material to be infiltrated into a movie. I myself, in these groups, never heard discussed, for instance, the way in which the party could take over the ideology of the industry. This I never did hear. Mr. Tavenner. But if they were successful in influencing the think- ing of some of the individuals, that naturally would affect their writings. Mr. Schoenfeld. That is true, sir. Mr. Tavenner. And although the Communist Party could not, be- cause of the mechanical difficulties and because of the fact that many of you were independent in your thinking, succeed in actually pro- ducing a Communist film, yet if they influenced the writer's thinking they could influence the content of his work. It would be bound to influence the content of his work, would it not? Mr. Schoenfeld. That is true, sir. That is true. Mr. Tavenner. Now, did you observe anything of the same charac- ter in the work of the League of American Writers ? Mr. Schoenfeld. Well, no, sir. Because I never attended any meetings. It was while I was in Washington. I was merely a paid- up member; that is all; and never attended any meetings or knew any- one here who at all belonged. I had no activity whatsoever in that league. Mr. Tavenner. You indicated a resentment toward the effort of the Communist Party to influence the way in which you would carry out the work of your own profession. Mr. Schoenfeld. That is right, sir. Mr. Tavenner. Do you have in mind any particular instances in which either you or other members of your profession were influenced or attempted to be influenced in any particular way ? Mr. Schoenfeld. No, sir, I can't remember any specific illustration of it; merely, as you said, sir, the hope that from these discussions their philosophy would so be superimposed on yours that automati- cally, I presume, as you wrote you would orient yourself in this way. Mr. Tavenner. You were telling the committee that you went to New York. Mr. Schoenfeld. Yes, sir; in October 19451 left for New York City, and I remained there a year. I had not asked for a transfer. I paid no dues while I was in !Slew York. I had no contract whatsoever with the association, personally or by mail. I saw no association members while I was in New York. I was working on a play during that time, and I had no political activity of any kind. I returned to Hollywood in October 1946, and between October 1946 and the spring of 1947,1 attended, oh, at most I should say five meet- ings. I had no political activity within the group, and continued to just remain a passive member. I do remember that these meetings pertained to the breaking off, the change, from the association into the party again, the Duclos- Browder conflict. And this was the beginning of the straw that broke the camel's back as far as I was concerned, because I, from the very beginning, championed Browder's attempts at collective security, the way he had identified with what I thought was a philosophy of gradual social change, the united front, and I remember Mr. Biberman and Mr. Butler attacking Browder as the party chief. And I became con-