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)

38 COMMUNISM IN MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY been here for many, many years, and who re;illy know Russia, told us that Stalin gave a magnificent performance during the showing of the picture. "Walter Huston was fine," a British member of the diplomatic corps told us, "but he couldn't compare with Stalin. Do you know that Stalin kept a straight face througliout the showing? He didn't laugh once." A few days later the film was sliown at our embassy at one of the usual Saturday afternoon shows. It was a beautiful technical job and the performances of the character actors who figured in the trial scenes were especially magnificent. But the film portrayed a Russia that none of us had ever seen. This would have been all right except that the picture purported to be factual and the Russia shown in the film had as much relation to the Russia we all know as Shangri-la would have to the real Tibet. Correspondents like Henry Shapiro, Jean Champenois, and Alfred Cholerton who had been in Moscow for many years were bewildered. The film had telescoped two purge trials into one and had not presented them with any degree of accuracy; no fault, of course, in a picture which did not claim to be factual. But this picture did. We all had copies (in English) of the testimony given at the trials and it varied considerably from what was shown on the sci-een. In the actual trials Radek's had been impassioned and brilliant and Bukharin's vituperative come-backs at Prosecutor Vishinsky's expense masterpieces of invective. The Warner Bros.' or Davies' version differed considerably. In the film Radek is condemned to death. Actually he was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment. The veteian diplomats were also astounded at the treatment given Lord Chislen in the picture. Chislen was British Ambassador to Russia during Mr. Davies' tenure of the American ambassadorship. In the film he was made out to be a half-wit. Veteran embassy officials and correspondents couldn't understand that at all. "Litvinov once told me during those days," a correspondent said, "that there were only two foreign diplomats in Moscow he had any respect for. They were Chislen and the German Ambassador Von Schulenberg." We were all frankly embarrassed by the picture. I was especially amazed because I know the Warner Bros, and their brilliant staff that so faithfully mirrored the careers of men like Dr. Erlich, Pasteur, Zola, and others whom they made sub.iects of pictures. It was hard to believe that they had made this factually incorrect film. It would have been so easy for Warner Bros, to have called in any correspondent who had spent some time in Russia to check up on factual details. If the purpose of the picture was to improve relations between America and Russia it was completely defeated by the obvious inaccuracies shown on the screen. It was such a pity that no one with any knowledge of Russia was called in to advise on the story. It could have been a great picture and an honest one. I met one of the officials of Vox the day after the picture was shown to us. Vox passes on all foreign pictures before they are shown in Russia. I asked him if Mission to Moscow would be released to the public. "Well," he hesitated, "we'd like to release it but, of course," he added in perfect seriousness, "we have to cvit a great deal of the Russian parts out of it." Have yoii ever seen that statement which appeared in Reynolds' book? Mr. Warner. No ; it is the first time I ever knew that Mr. Reynolds had been in Russia or wrote a book, and if he did it is his own personal opinion. I have nothing to say other than Reynolds speaks of 1944. Our picture, under the guidance of Mr. Joseph E. Davies, speaks up to and including his leaving of the Embassy in Russia in 1937. Again, I have little or nothing to comment. I know nothing about it, other than what you have just read. Mr. Stripling. Well, is it your opinion now, Mr, Warner, that Mission to Moscow was a factually correct picture, and you made it as such ? Mr. Warner. I can't remember. Mr. Stripling. Would you consider it a propaganda picture? Mr. Warner. A propaganda picture Mr. Stripling. Yes.