Hearings regarding the communist infiltration of the motion picture industry. Hearings before the Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, Eightieth Congress, first session. Public law 601 (section 121, subsection Q (1947)

COMMUNISM IN MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY 33 On page 19 at the bottom that question was asked, and if you will i>o to page 22, you will find that I replied — well, it refers to who contacted us about making the film. I said : At the time I can't remember if he contacted us, or my brother who was in New York contacted Mr. Davies. I can't say who contacted whom, but I know that we went ahead with it. Here is the story of what occurred. My brother contacted Mr. Davies after reading Misson to Moscow as a best seller on the stands and in the new\spapers. Mr. Davies stated, "There are other companies wanting to produce this book and I would be very happy to do business with you if you want to make it," or words to that effect. My brother made the deal with Mr. Davies to make it and it was at my brother's suggestion and not Mr. Davies'. I am rather surprised I said what I did. but I want to stand corrected, if I may. Mr. Striplixg. All right, Mr. Warner. Now, I would like to read further. Mr. Chairman. The Chaikman. Proceed. Mr. Stripling (reading) : Mr. Stripuxg. Did Mr. Davies coni'e to Hollywood to see you relative to the making of Mission of Moscow, or did you confer with him at any time about it in person? Mr. Warnek. I conferred with him in AVashington and we made the deal in the East, in New York or Washington ; I have forgotten which. But he did come here when the film was being produced, and he also acted in an advisory capacity throughout tlie making of the film. As a matter of, fact, he appeared in a slight prologue of the picture. Mr. Stripling. Don't you consider very frankly that the film Mission to Moscow was in some ways a misinterpretation of the facts, or the existing conditions'/ Mr. Warner. Of the time, you mean? Mr. Stripling. Yes. Mr. Warner. In 1942? Mr. Stripling. In other words, certain historical incidents which were portrayed in the film were not true to fact? Mr. Warner. Well, all I could go by — I read the novel and spoke to Mr. Davies on many, many occasions. I had to take his word that they were the facts. He had published the novel and we were criticized severely by the press in New York and elsewhere. As I remember, it was started up by this Professor Dewey from Columbia University. From what I read and heard, he was a Trotskyite and tliey were the ones who objected mostly to this filia because of Lenin versus Trotsk.v Mr. Stripling. That is Dr. John Dewey? Mr. Warner. Yes. That is what I read. He made statements in the New York Times which were as long as the paper was, but as to the actual facts, if they weren't portrayed authentically — I never was in Russia myself and I don't know what they were doing in 1942, other than seeing the events of the battles for Stalingrad and Moscow, which we all saw in the films and read about. But I talked to ^Ir. Davies about that after we were criticized, and there is only one thing tliat happens which is a license, what we call condensation in the making of films. We put the two trials in one and the two trials were condensed because if you ran the two trials it would go on for 20 reels. I personally did not consider that film pro-Communist at the time. Mr. Thomas. Now, it is 1947. Do you think it is pro-Coninmnist now? Mr. Warner. That I would have to think over. Let me pause for a minute and ask you a question or two, if you don't mind. You mean by saying that the type of scenes shown in that film today would that make the picture pro-Communist ; is that it? Mr. Thomas. You said in 1^942. Mr. Warner. It was made in 1942. Mr. Thomas. You did not believe it wns pro-Communist? Mr. Warner. No. We wei'e at war at that time. Mr. Thomas. Now it is 1947. Do you believe it is pro-Communist?