Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Hollywood 10 member Edward Dmytryk's 1951 testimony


FredCDobbs
 Share

Recommended Posts

Here is a link to Edward Dmytryk's 1951 testimony before the House Committee on Un-American Activities. His testimony starts on PAGE 408 of this transcript. (For more, see the full transcript at this link):

 

http://www.archive.org/stream/communistinfiltr02unit/communistinfiltr02unit_djvu.txt'>http://www.archive.org/stream/communistinfiltr02unit/communistinfiltr02unit_djvu.txt

 

Mr. Tavenner. At the time you directed this picture Crossfire, how

did your weekly salary compare with the time you started?

 

Mr. Dmytryk. I was making $2,500 a week, 52 weeks a year.

 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Dmytryk, you were subpenaed as a witness

before this committee in 1947 ?

 

Mr. Dmytryk. I was.

 

Mr. Tavenner. And you are one of those commonly referred to as

the "Hollywood Ten"?

 

Mr. Dmytryk. I was.

 

Mr. Tavenner. I notice you say you were, rather than are.

 

Mr. Dmytryk. I don't think I will be considered so much longer.

 

Mr. Tavenner. Your testimony today will throw considerable light

on that subject?

 

Mr. Dmytryk. I imagine so, yes.

 

Mr. Tavenner. I believe you were one of the group who were prose-

cuted for contempt of Congress, and that you received a sentence,

and that you have served that sentence ?

 

Mr. Dmytryk. I have, yes.

 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the Communist Party at

the time you were subpenaed before this committee in 1947 ?

 

Mr. Dmytryk. No ; I was not.

 

Mr. Tavenner. Had you ever been a member of the Communist

Party?

 

Mr. Dmytryk. Yes; I had been a member. I had been a member

from sometime around the spring or early summer 1944 until about

the fall of 1945. Most of this was during the period when the Com-

munist Party as such was dissolved and the Communist Political As-

sociation had taken its place.

 

410 COMMUNISM IN MOTION-PICTURE INDUSTRY

 

Mr. Tavenner. So you had been a member of the party for a com-

paratively short period of time ?

 

Mr. Dmytryk. Yes.

 

Mr. Tavenner. While you were a member of the so-called "Holly-

wood Ten," did you have opportunity to further observe the work-

ings of the Communist Party ?

 

Mr. Dmytryk. I think I can truthfully say that I had much more

opportunity to observe the workings of the Communist Party while I

was a member of the "Hollywood Ten" than I did while I was a mem-

ber of the Communist Party.

 

Mr. Tavenner. This committee is endeavoring very strenuously to

investigate Communist Party activities and the extent of Communist

Party infiltration into the entertainment field, with special reference

to the motion picture industry at the present time. Are you willing to

cooperate with the committee in giving it the benefit of what knowl-

edge you have from your own experiences, both while a member of

the Communist Party and later?

 

Mr. Dmytryk. I certainly am.

 

Mr. Tavenner. And that is true notwithstanding you refused to

testify before this committee in 1947 ?

 

Mr. Dmytryk. Yes ; it is true. The situation has somewhat changed.

 

Mr. Tavenner. What do you mean by that ?

 

Mr. Dmytryk. Well, very simply, this. In 1947 ? and I think this

question is apt to get a little complicated. May I take some time in

answering it, please?

 

Mr. Tavenner. Just treat it as you like.

 

Mr. Dmytryk. There is a great deal of difference between 1947

and 1951 as far as the Communist Party is concerned, or at least as

far as my awareness of what is going on is concerned.

 

In 1947 the cold war had not yet gone beyond the freezing point.

I wanted to believe that Russia was very sincere in wanting peace,

and I didn't feel the Communist Party in this country was any partic-

ular menace as far as I knew, and I felt the committee before which

I appeared was invading a field they could not properly invade, that

is, freedom of speech and freedom of thought; and I also sincerely

believed the procedures used by the committee were not completely

in keeping with an honest investigation. On those grounds I refused

to testify at the time.

 

Since that time a number of very important developments have

taken place. In the first place, I had never heard before 1947 anybody

say they would refuse to fight for this country in a war against Soviet

Russia. I think I was in England when I first saw an article about

an Australian party member who said he would not fight against

Soviet Russia. Then I saw articles about American party members

taking the same position; I believe Paul Robeson was one. Since

then other party members in this country have stated they would not

fight for their country. I think in a democracy each person takes

upon himself the duty to defend his country in time of war.

 

Along with other people, I signed the Stockholm Peace Petition.

I believe in peace, as everybody does. I hoped they were sincere.

However, the Korean War made me realize that they were not. I

think any intelligent person must realize that the North Koreans would

not have attacked the South Koreans unless they had the backing

of very strong forces. I can't prove it, but I believe those forces

 

COMMUNISM IN MOTION-PICTURE INDUSTRY 411

 

are Communist China and Communist Russia. This, too, disturbed

me tremendously, and made me realize there is a Communist menace

and that the Communist Party in this country is a part of that

menace.

 

The third thing was the spy trials, the development of the Hiss,

Coplon, and Gneenglass cases, and the Fuchs case in England. To

me there is a significant thing about the spy trials. The thing that

impressed me was that these people did not get any money, or not

much. There are spies who work for their country, and we have

respect for them. There are other spies who receive money for their

work, and there may be a certain admiration for them, because they

risk their necks. These people are doing it for love of the party.

This is treason. I think the party that has used them is treasonable

also.

 

I don't say all members of the Communist Party are guilty of trea-

son, but I think a party that encourages them to act in this capacity

is treasonable. For this reason I am willing to talk today.

 

Mr. Tavenner. I would like to have you state to this committee,

from your own experience in the Communist Party and your study

of its activities and what knowledge you have on the subject, what

the real object of the Communist Party is in its efforts to organize

and infiltrate the moving-picture industry in Hollywood.

 

Mr. Dmytrtk. Well, I had no access to inner-party circles, so I

can't tell you officially, but my opinion is they had probably three

chief purposes.

 

The first one was to get money. Hollywood is a very wealthy com-

munity, and it is a great source of capital.

 

The next one was to get prestige.

 

And the third and most important one was, through the infiltra-

tion and eventual taking over of Hollywood guilds and unions, to

control the content of pictures. The only way they could control the

content of pictures was to control studios, and the only way they

could do that was to completely take over the guilds and the unions.

 

Mr. Tavenner. Let us go back to the first of those purposes that you

mentioned, the matter of money. What information do you have

regarding the effort of the Communist Party to obtain sizable sums of

money out of its membership in Hollywood ?

 

Mr. Dmytryk. I have no exact information, but I heard a great

deal of talk about it at the time, and I know that at least some of

the members were making sizable salaries. This was not true in all

cases, but there was in some cases a tithing system under which

members gave a percentage of their salaries. Sometimes it amounted

to quite a bit of money.

 

There was also the opportunity to hold a great many affairs ?

parties, dinners, meetings of various sorts ? not so much directly for

the Communist Party as for Communist-front organizations, for which

they were always able to get very sizable donations, and I think over

a period of years, particularly when the love feast was on between

Russia and America during the war and for some years afterwards, a

great deal of money was taken from Hollywood.

 

(See this link for more):

http://www.archive.org/stream/communistinfiltr02unit/communistinfiltr02unit_djvu.txt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This really is very interesting. When I attended film school in the early to mid-1990s, Edward Dmytryk was one of our professors at USC. Another professor who was a mentor to me did not really like Dmytryk, because he recanted. Her husband had been blacklisted and they fled to Mexico to work with Luis Bunuel on ADVENTURES OF ROBINSON CRUSOE. They spent much of that time with Dalton Trumbo's family who had also fled to Mexico.

 

My professor and her husband eventually went on to work in Europe, particularly in Italy. They did not return to the U.S. and to Hollywood until the 1960s. Meanwhile, Dmytryk's career immediately rebounded after this testimony, and he continued to enjoy a string of hits and subsequent A-picture assignments at various studios up through the 1970s.

 

It is interesting how this all played out, and how it had long-lasting ramifications. These were real lives dealing with real threats (and not just Communist threats).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I knew Dmytryk when he taught at AFI in the mid-1980s. He told tales of this period in his life with the kind of glee that should make anyone doubt the teller's sincerity, and even sanity. Listening to him, one would think he was auditioning for the part of Mister Scratch (aka the Devil) in a production of THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER.

 

In fact, part of the transcript below bears repeating:

 

Mr. Dmytryk: I have no exact information, but I heard a great

deal of talk about it at the time, and I know that at least some of

the members were making sizable salaries.

 

"I have no exact information, but I heard a great deal of talk..."

 

American law classifies this as hearsay, which is totally inadmissable in court. That the HUAC Committee could flout the law and rely on hearsay, and even use it as grounds to encourage blacklisting and sentence unfriendly witnesses to prison on contempt charges, flies in the face of the laws of the United States and Constitutional guarantees of due process. It should tell the reader exactly who were the real enemies of democracy and freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sprocket Man you bring up a good point. That is hearsay and it is inadmissible, but obviously the HUAC monsters didn't can about the LAW. And what about innocent until proven guilty?

How could they blacklist people and ruin their careers without solid evidence? I mean they blacklisted John Garfield ruined his film career, and a month after he died they cleared his name.

Couldn't a person who was blacklisted sue them for defamation of character?

Unbelievable that this HUAC mess happened in this country.

 

So what did the other 9 of the Hollywood 10 think about Dmytryk becoming a friendly witness?

And after Dmytryk did talk did his career flourish again?

 

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lori, House and Senate Committees try to be, or pretend to be, "investigative committees", so some types of hearsay evidence can be presented to the committees, although it might not be fair, since hearsay testimony before a committee can damage the reputation of people whose names are mentioned at public hearings.

 

The Hollywood blacklists were separate and they were handled by people within the film industry:

 

Waldorf-Astoria Hotel,

http://www.cobbles.com/simpp_archive/huac_into.htm

"The heads of the major film companies rushed to New York City on November 24 (1947) for a two-day conference to come to a unified consensus.

 

The Waldorf agreement denounced the behavior of the Hollywood Ten, and pledged that they, the signatory Hollywood executives and producers, would not knowingly hire a member of any politically subversive group. Thus began the Communist blacklist in Hollywood."

 

http://www.cobbles.com/simpp_archive/huac_schary.htm

 

The Waldorf Conference Statement, December 1, 1947:

 

http://www.cobbles.com/simpp_archive/huac_nelson1947.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Off the blacklist, onto the Gutless Opportunists' list. Yep,

Eddie decided to cooperate because he became concerned

after the beginning of the Korean War and the various

spy scandals. It had absolutely nothing to do with trying

to save his own rear and being able to work in Hollywood

again. Sure buddy.

 

 

Some people had no trouble taking care of the nitwits of HUAC.:

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Off the blacklist, onto the Gutless Opportunists' list.

 

Careful, C. Bogle, these are fightin' words for those who backed the monsters behind the HUAC who ruined the lives of John Garfield and so many others in the entertainment industry while the gutless opportunists like Cohen and McCarthy didn't get their a**** kicked back to Brooklyn, where my Babs would have ripped them a new one.

 

Careful, we'll have another thread like the Garfield one where the brain dead call the truism:

 

*"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."*

 

a platitude and a bromide and stew in the comfort of their selfish safety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people had no trouble taking care of the nitwits of HUAC.:

 

Lionel Stander's testimony on one occasion is like something out of a Marx Brothers movie. While being grilled about what he knows, Stander keeps interrupting the questioner to tell him of a body of men who are doing everything that they can to subvert the Constitution. He's clearly trying to denigrate the Committee, but his inquisitioner isn't going to let him make his point without difficulty.

 

I've tried to find it online but that effort isn't yielding what I'm looking for as printed in "Naming Names" by Victor Navasky.

 

Arthur Miller wrote of how Chairman Walters of HUAC offered to cancel Miller's hearing if Miller would get his wife Marilyn Monroe to agree to a photo with him. Miller refused, but it goes to show the priorities were really just opportunistic and self-serving. The hearings effected no new legislation (the usual intent of such hearings) and offered up no real evidence of any crimes committed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SprocketMan,

 

If I recall from reading his autobiography (this was some time ago), Dymtryk wrote that one of the reasons why he decided to change his mind is because his wife was having a hard time with him being in jail and all that not being well regarded in their social circles. Also, being cut off from making the income he was used to bringing in, Mrs. Dymtryk was having a hard time adjusting to the lack of money.

 

That all changed once he recanted his position and went back to talk to the Committee.

 

He was able to return to his family, Hollywood and continued directing films.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Dymtryk wrote that one of the reasons why he decided to change his mind is because his wife was having a hard time with him being in jail and all that not being well regarded in their social circles. Also, being cut off from making the income he was used to bringing in, Mrs. Dymtryk was having a hard time adjusting to the lack of money.

 

So his wife made him do it, huh? :)

 

IMDB says Madeleine Robinson divorced him in 1947, and he married Jean Porter in 1948, so which wife did all the complaining?

 

Here is a link to a couple of chapters from Edward Dmytryk's book, Odd man out: a memoir of the Hollywood Ten, published in 1996. The text of this preview starts on Page 5. He talks about his early years in Hollywood and leads up to his joining of the Communist Party in 1944 (on Page 8):

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=mPZGLABnGbQC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

Then the preview jumps to Chapter 10 on page 72, where he tells about how the House Committee hearings of 1947 turned out to be a disaster for the Hollywood 10, because many of the ones who didn't want to testify, argued openly with some of the Committee members, and in doing so they looked and sounded like they had some big secrets they were covering up. This turned out to be very bad for their side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

*If I recall from reading his autobiography (this was some time ago), Dymtryk wrote that one of the reasons why he decided to change his mind is because his wife was having a hard time with him being in jail and all that not being well regarded in their social circles. Also, being cut off from making the income he was used to bringing in, Mrs. Dymtryk was having a hard time adjusting to the lack of money.*

 

 

Ah, late at night while in bed and ready for some communication with his significant other he receives the cold shoulder and discontent.

 

He's not the first nor the last who has had a change of heart regarding his outlook on things because of his beloved significant other.

 

Really...

 

Jake in the Heartland

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Careful, C. Bogle, these are fightin' words for those who backed the monsters behind the HUAC who ruined the lives of John Garfield and so many others in the entertainment industry while the gutless opportunists like Cohen and McCarthy didn't get their a**** kicked back to Brooklyn, where my Babs would have ripped them a new one.

 

I only wish that our favorite actress would have done something like that, but unfortunately she and her hubby Robert Taylor were squarely in HUAC's corner during this unfortunate time. Stanwyck wasn't exactly outspoken about it, but her name is right there on the members list of The Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals. And she and Taylor were hardly the only ones. Cooper, Gable, and Ginger Rogers were right alongside them as well, among many others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Alliance_for_the_Preservation_of_American_Ideals

 

The Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals (MPAPAI, also MPA) was an American organization of high-profile, politically conservative members of the Hollywood film industry. It was formed in 1944 for the stated purpose of defending the film industry, and the country as a whole, against what its founders claimed was communist and fascist infiltration.

 

The initial, immediate purpose in forming the organization was to assemble a group of well-known show business figures willing to attest, under oath, before Congress to the supposed presence of Communists in their industry.[3] And indeed, when the House Un-American Activities Committee investigated the motion picture industry, the vast majority of "friendly witnesses" were supplied by the Alliance.

 

Prominent members of the Alliance included Robert Arthur, Ward Bond, Clarence Brown, Charles Coburn, Gary Cooper, Cecil B. DeMille, Walt Disney, Irene Dunne, Victor Fleming, Clark Gable, Cedric Gibbons, Hedda Hopper, Leo McCarey, James Kevin McGuinness, Adolphe Menjou, George Murphy, Fred Niblo, Ayn Rand, Ronald Reagan, Ginger Rogers, Morrie Ryskind, Norman Taurog, Robert Taylor, Barbara Stanwyck, King Vidor, John Wayne, Frank Wead and Sam Wood.

 

-----------------------------------

 

Shortly after its formation in 1944, the Alliance issued a "Statement of Principles:"

 

We believe in, and like, the American way of life: the liberty and freedom which generations before us have fought to create and preserve; the freedom to speak, to think, to live, to worship, to work, and to govern ourselves as individuals, as free men; the right to succeed or fail as free men, according to the measure of our ability and our strength.

 

Believing in these things, we find ourselves in sharp revolt against a rising tide of communism, fascism, and kindred beliefs, that seek by subversive means to undermine and change this way of life; groups that have forfeited their right to exist in this country of ours, because they seek to achieve their change by means other than the vested procedure of the ballot and to deny the right of the majority opinion of the people to rule.

 

In our special field of motion pictures, we resent the growing impression that this industry is made of, and dominated by, Communists, radicals, and crackpots. We believe that we represent the vast majority of the people who serve this great medium of expression. But unfortunately it has been an unorganized majority. This has been almost inevitable. The very love of freedom, of the rights of the individual, make this great majority reluctant to organize. But now we must, or we shall meanly lose "the last, best hope on earth."

 

As Americans, we have no new plan to offer. We want no new plan, we want only to defend against its enemies that which is our priceless heritage; that freedom which has given man, in this country, the fullest life and the richest expression the world has ever known; that system which, in the present emergency, has fathered an effort that, more than any other single factor, will make possible the winning of this war.

 

As members of the motion-picture industry, we must face and accept an especial responsibility. Motion pictures are inescapably one of the world's greatest forces for influencing public thought and opinion, both at home and abroad. In this fact lies solemn obligation. We refuse to permit the effort of Communist, Fascist, and other totalitarian-minded groups to pervert this powerful medium into an instrument for the dissemination of un-American ideas and beliefs. We pledge ourselves to fight, with every means at our organized command, any effort of any group or individual, to divert the loyalty of the screen from the free America that give it birth. And to dedicate our work, in the fullest possible measure, to the presentation of the American scene, its standards and its freedoms, its beliefs and its ideals, as we know them and believe in them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't give Cooper any flack. He appeared before the committee but didn't name anyone. He was smart enough to play dumb and avoided contaminating anyone. He also stood up to the likes of John Wayne and Ward Bond who were insisting that he drop out of HIGH NOON lest it kill his career by appearing in something "so un-American."

 

In fact, Cooper has the last laugh. Knowing that he could not make the Oscar ceremonies, he asked Wayne to pick up his Oscar if he won. So, there was John Wayne, picking up a friend's award for a film that he had passed on doing - and warned his agent that he would be fired if Wayne was ever sent such a Commie script again.

 

Yet, while accepting the Oscar, Wayne said "Now I'm going to have to speak to my agent about why I didn't get the part."

 

Cooper must have been laughing for some time after that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It was sad that so many people suffered to one degree or another for,

in the case of many, having unpopular and at the time inconvenient

beliefs. Hope it never happens again. Not to get all nitpicky on this

subject, but it's Roy Cohn. With or without the e, he was one nasty

s.o.b.

 

clore, I remember there were some who really made the committee

look foolish, not that was too difficult. I remember a little bit about

Stander's testimony, but it's been a while since I've read it. I got a

kick out of one member asking Brecht if he had ever been a member

of the Communist Party of any country. He says no and then a question

or two later, someone asks him if he was a member of the Communist

Party in Germany. Not the sharpest tools in the shed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>while the gutless opportunists like Cohen and McCarthy didn't get their a**** kicked back to Brooklyn, where my Babs would have ripped them a new one.

 

You too apparently do not know that Cohen and McCarthy had absolutely nothing to do with the House Committee, since McCarthy was a Senator and Cohen worked for him on the Senate, and the House Committee was a committee of the US Houses of Representatives, not the Senate.

 

True history is important, and that's why I post links to real documentation, since so many erroneous stories and fables are told on the internet. People can make up anything and say anything they want, even if it isn't true, and that is why I like to post links to real historical documents so people can read the true facts of history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The HUAC members weren't above taking "cheap shots." Read a small part of John Garfield's testimony, and see what idiots these HUAC monsters were.

 

Mr. Garfield. Yes. As I have said, I wasn't in on the organizationof it. (The Committee for the First Amendment) I wasn't in California. Some 2 or 3 months later I did a play, Skipper Next to God, and the Daily Worker panned me and said I was a little punch-drunk for playing in a religious play like Skipper Next to God.{noformat} {noformat}

{noformat}Mr. Velde. How did you know about the Daily Worker saying that? {noformat}

{noformat} {noformat}

{noformat}Mr. Garfield. I look in all papers and try to find out all information about myself. {noformat}

{noformat} {noformat}

{noformat}Mr. Velde. I was interested in how you happened to see it. {noformat}

{noformat} {noformat}

{noformat}Mr. Garfield. Would you like to see the copy ? {noformat}

{noformat} {noformat}

{noformat}Mr. Velde. No. I have seen many copies of the Daily Worker. I asked how you happened to look at the Daily Worker. {noformat}

{noformat} {noformat}

{noformat}Mr. Garfield. They review all plays. {noformat}

{noformat} {noformat}

{noformat}Mr. Velde. There is nothing sinister in my question. {noformat}

{noformat} {noformat}

{noformat}Mr. Garfield. Most actors, if they are actors at all, like to see all the reviews, regardless of what

paper publishes them. That was a review of a play I was in. {noformat}

{noformat} {noformat}

{noformat}Mr. Velde. You still haven't answered my question, Mr. Garfield. {noformat}

{noformat}How did you happen to get hold of a copy of the Daily Worker? {noformat}

{noformat} {noformat}

{noformat}Mr. Garfield. It was a review in the Daily Worker. {noformat}

{noformat} {noformat}

{noformat}Mr. Velde. I realize that. Do you remember where you obtained {noformat}

{noformat}the copy ? {noformat}

{noformat} {noformat}

{noformat}Mr. Garfield. Yes. I got a copy by buying a copy. They have a {noformat}

{noformat}dramatic critic and they review plays just like the New York Times {noformat}

{noformat}or the Herald Tribune. {noformat}

{noformat} {noformat}

{noformat}Mr. Moulder. We subscribe to the Daily Worker here. {noformat}

{noformat} {noformat}

{noformat}Mr. Jackson. And the witness should know that this committee also {noformat}

{noformat}shared the criticism of the Daily Worker.

 

Really cheap shot, and the morons admitted they agreed with The Daily Worker newspaper.

Garfield's daughter says that after they "grilled" John Garfield for hours, the members of HUAC actually argued on

on who would go out to dinner with him! Talk about idiots.{noformat}

{noformat} {noformat}

{noformat} {noformat}

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was plenty of room for stupidity on both sides - HUAC and those cited to be Communists. But the bulk of the blame should fall upon the American people who did not realize that what was being done in the name of God and country was little removed from the Nazi tactic of uniting a country by creating a boogeyman.

 

This could not have escaped the moguls of Hollywood, most of whom were Jewish and who were now in effect American royalty. The closest we came to that previously was in politics, their names were the public figures prior to the movie industry. Now it was time to slap down the usurpers, the moguls who cooperated with FDR to make pro-Soviet movies during wartime and those writers and directors with foreign names like Biberman, Dmytryk, Maltz, Ornitz and Polonsky as well as those movie stars who changed their names, guys like Jacob Garfinkle, Emmanuel Goldenberg and those who kept their birth names such as Morris Carnovsky. Nothing stirs a populice up like blaming evil on foreigners.

 

No wonder the moguls were shaking, many of them already lost an element of power with the Paramount Decree of 1948 forbidding studio ownership of theaters. If they perceived it as step one of a threat, it was probably a case of not being paranoid enough.

 

 

But it's easy to sit here 60 years later and point fingers (even I'm doing that) or offer bumper sticker slogans and misspelled names and even name some that had no bearing on HUAC. Boy, the irony of that last sure goes to show how blame can be spread unknowingly even today, because there are few willing to take the time to verify something as truthful or even accurate. No wonder the hysteria proliferated back then and could again given the lack of intellectual curiosity. It would be even worse now because a Red Channels list would be available right on the internet and probably updated by the public at large just like Wikipedia.

 

 

The really sad thing is that back then all of it was so unnecessary, the names were already in the hands of law enforcement officials. It was all just a circus act to show who had the real power at the time:

 

 

http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/navasky-chap10.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> f I recall from reading his autobiography (this was some time ago), Dymtryk wrote that one of the reasons why he decided to change his mind is because his wife was having a hard time with him being in jail and all that not being well regarded in their social circles. Also, being cut off from making the income he was used to bringing in, Mrs. Dymtryk was having a hard time adjusting to the lack of money.

I'm sure that Mrs Dalton Trumbo; Mrs Alvah Bessie; Mrs Adrian Scott; Mrs Samuel Ornitz; Mrs Herbert Biberman; Mrs John Howard Lawson; Mrs Ring Lardner, jr; Mrs Lester Cole; and Mrs Albert Maltz were also having money troubles and suffered a diminished standard of living after their husbands were called before the Committee, blacklisted and then sent to prison with Dmytryk, yet the other nine men never turned on anyone of their acquaintance and named names.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...