Reynold Humphries,
Hollywood’s Blacklists: A Political and Cultural History.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2010
ISBN: 978-0-7486-2456-0
UK£19.99 (pb)
184pp
(Review copy supplied by Edinburgh University Press)

Fear and anxiety loomed over the offices and back lots of Hollywood studios throughout the early 1950s. Following World War II and the death of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, American politics shifted away from left-leaning policies and entered into a period of conservatism. Unfortunately for some of Hollywood’s left-leaning writers, directors and actors, the new political climate of the 1950s caused politicians and American society to judge and denounce their support for progressive politics throughout the 1930s and 1940s. This xenophobic cultural and political climate is thoroughly investigated in Reynold Humphries’ rich text Hollywood’s Blacklists: A Political and Cultural History. Drawing upon Congressional testimonies, oral histories and materials from blacklistees, Congressmen and studio heads, Humphries’s text provides a detailed look inside the tensions running throughout Hollywood from the 1930s through the mid-1950s. While Hollywood’s Blacklists is primarily concerned with the post-war era, the book also casts light upon the events from the 1930s and 1940s that lead to the creation of the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) and the blacklist.

Humphries, a former professor of film studies at the University of Lille III in France, begins Hollywood’s Blacklists with a thoughtful introductory section titled, “Drawing the Battle Lines.” In this section Humphries contextualizes his historical narrative by briefly outlining the conflict occurring in Hollywood throughout the 1930s as liberals and conservatives fought over unions and their power in Hollywood. This polemical battle in Humphries’s mind “sowed the seeds of the antagonisms, conflicts and trench warfare that characterized the relations not only between studios and employees in Hollywood but also between unions. These relations were to lead by a tortuous route to the Hearings and the consequent blacklist.” (p. 27). Additionally, throughout this section Humphries juxtaposes the chasm of political difference existing within Hollywood. In the 1930s he points out that conservatives, such as Walt Disney or William Randolph Hearst, actively supported the fascist politics of Adolf Hitler and General Franco. In contrast, the Hollywood left was strongly anti-fascist, supporting Loyalist Spain and denouncing Franco. Humphries also notes that membership or support for the Communist Party was in vogue with many liberal Hollywood writers. This brief, but excellent overview of the political battles occurring in Hollywood and America in the 1930s and 1940s provides the necessary background for properly understanding the animosity between members of the right and left during the blacklist years.

The second half of Humphries text moves ahead to post-WWII America and the conservatism that influenced the creation of HUAC and the blacklist. At the beginning of the section entitled, “From the Hot War to the Cold War”, Humphries notes that despite not being vocally supportive or engaged in leftist politics, by the post-war years the actions of Hollywood liberals in the 1930s became questionable. He points out that current or former supporters of leftist politics in Hollywood were suspected of being Un-American because they may have at one point in time challenged “the status quo, the economic order, the power and profits of the few, [or even] worse: the ideological notion of American hegemony” (p. 23). While this second half of Hollywood’s Blacklists provides a detailed historical narrative about this time period, what is most interesting about it is Humphries’s analysis of the dangerous and divisive rhetoric espoused by HUAC members and supporters of their inquisition.

Although members of the HUAC hearings disguised their notions as patriotic and in the best interests of America, Humphries reveals the hate rhetoric underlying the hearings. Delving into the pasts of several committee members, Humphries points out that many on the HUAC panel were at times active supporters of the Ku Klux Klan or other hate groups. Humphries showcases one of the most extreme examples of this, stating that the “Chairman of HUAC from 1955, claimed that neither the American Nazi Party nor the KKK ‘constitute a threat to the liberties of Americans.’” (p. 14). Humphries argues that this kind of hatred was exhibited throughout the HUAC hearings, particularly when committee members equated being Jewish to being a Communist—thus being Un-American. Moreover, HUAC investigators dismissed the notion that political dissent is one of the most important attributes of American democracy. While accused individuals attempted to defend their reputations from the judgment of the HUAC investigators, the deep-rooted social anxieties over Communism and arrogance about political difference prevented them from being heard. The bitterness felt by liberals in Hollywood opposed to the HUAC hearings can be seen in a letter written by screenwriter, Dudley Nichols. In 1952 Nichols wrote that HUAC and the country had become overrun by “The super loyalists, the bigoted and ignorant, the scared reactionaries, the corrupt and militant totalitarians, the men using patriotism as an ugly club to cow or kill whoever doesn’t knuckle under to them—these people are bent on blacklisting every decent free-minded man” (p. 121). Looking back at the cultural and political consequences of the HUAC hearings and the conservative political rule of post-WWII America, Humphries laments the fate of individuals who were unjustly punished. However, at the same time he does not believe the creativity of this era was ruined. In contrast, he attempts to understand the era in a more positive manner, stressing that “if HUAC had never existed, Hollywood in the 1950s would have been even greater than it was” (p. 140).

Although Hollywood’s Blacklists is primarily concerned with the historical narrative of the HUAC hearings, throughout the text, Humphries provides a quick analysis of several films from the late 1940s through the mid-1950s. Placing horror, science fiction and film noir titles into their proper historical context, Humphries outlines the social and political undertones of these works. Humphries pays close attention to science fiction titles from this era. Utilizing Freud’s theory of the return of the repressed, Humphries points out films such as The Whip Hand (USA 1951) or It Came from Outer Space (USA 1953) disguise the real horrors of the Red Scare and HUAC hearings behind monsters, mad scientists and entertainment. In addition to these kinds of films, other non-science fiction works are explored, such as I Was a Communist for the FBI (USA 1951), Trial (USA 1955) and My Son John (USA 1952). However, Humphries argues that most films from this era contain ambiguities and contradictions about American society. He stresses that although a large majority of films embrace America and notions of freedom, at the same time these works often make US government officials almost indistinguishable from the villains (or ciphers for Communist agents).

In the final pages of Hollywood’s Blacklists, Humphries notes the consequences of the blacklist and the HUAC hearings with a brief polemical commentary. He compares the Red Scare in post-WWII America to similar kinds of social anxiety in the 21st century since the September 11 terrorist attacks. He writes, the “hysteria and verbal violence [following September 11] recall certain excesses to which we have referred throughout this book” (p. 162). In both the 1950s and early 2000s, out of fear, American politicians enacted laws and launched investigations that were the antithesis of American values. Whether speaking about the HUAC hearings in the late 1940s and early 1950s or the Patriot Act of the early 21st Century, American politicians have consistently used social fears to justify infringing upon the rights of citizens. History shows us that those who argue against this kind of action are often described as Un-Patriotic or Un-American. While Humphries makes a convincing and apt comparison between the fear of Communism in the 1950s and the fear of terrorism in the 21st Century, Hollywood’s Blacklists also reveals the kinds of political partisanship that has plagued American politics. In 1950 to be a liberal, progressive, member of the left or supporter of FDR’s social politics, often equated to being a Communist and a threat to American democracy. Similarly in 2010, members of the far right have used similar tactics, calling liberals Socialists and looking at the politics of FDR and other socially conscious politicians as dangers to American liberty. Although Humphries book is not a polemical indictment of conservative politicians and their ideology, his book reveals the presence of a divisive political rhetoric built out of fear and its ability to easily manipulate the American democracy to fit its own agenda.

Hollywood’s Blacklists is an invigorating piece of political and cultural history. This well-written and thoroughly researched book provides excellent insight into one of the most turbulent time periods of American history. Humphries brings together a large variety of research materials, particularly a number of archival sources from congressional testimonies to journals and letters written by opponents of the blacklist, including Dudley Nichols, Abraham Polonsky and Donald Ogden Stewart. By quoting these primary sources throughout the text, Humphries allows the reader to gain a first hand look into the crisis. Moreover, throughout the text, Humphries cites and points the reader to the work of other cultural historians like Michael Denning, Paul Buhle, Larry Ceplair, Steven Englund and the work of a number of other scholars who have written extensively about the politics and culture of America from the 1930s through the 1950s.

Hollywood’s Blacklists is an exceptional resource for anyone interested in a concise history of the Hollywood blacklist and the events leading to its creation. However, Humphries’ text is also a timely piece of scholarship that provides a pertinent look at how politicians using divisive rhetoric, masked behind fear and patriotism, can lead to the breakdown of democratic values by castigating individuals who have, or had, a differing opinion.

Thomas Salek,
New York University, USA.

Created on: Thursday, 4 November 2010