Elia kazan dead...

[Dunners]

dont care too much, guy was a real son of a b***h. great writer/direct but nasty son of a b***h.

[onionhead]

Streetcar Named Desire, On the Waterfront, East of Eden, the guy made some dynamite flicks.  Too bad he was such a rotten egg.

[Chris K.]

On the imdb.com, Kazan is made out to look like the perfect angel. Too bad that Kazan ruined the careers of some in Hollywood when he was working with House UnAmerican Activities Committee in 1952. Most of the people that Kazan named weren't even Communists, yet it cost them their careers! Kazan was more UnAmerican than American in more ways than one.

While I don't want to walk on a man who has just recently passed on, I will say Kazan made some good films. But his 1952 actions sure as Hell don't earn him any respect at all from me. Chris Rock was right, Kazan was "a rat".

[Ken Begg]

Since a firm grasp of history isn't being displayed here, let me suggest the following reading material:

Hollywood Party  by Kenneth Lloyd Billingsley
Radical Hollywood by Paul Buele

and, of course,

The Black Book of Communism by Stephane Courtois

Kazan's actions are worthy of debate, but at least be informed first.  After all, there were committed Communists in Hollywood at the time, and whatever one thinks of Kazan, such people should be viewed with the same contempt that American Nazi symphathizers of the '30s are (except that the evidence of Stalin's crimes by the '50s was rather more substantial than Hitler's were before the war).  

Innocent people were victimized, a fact no sane person disputes.  However, not everyone was so innocent.  If a studio employee today made racist remarks, he would certainly be fired.  Frankly, I don't see the difference, except that Communists were more of an actual threat in the '50s than racists are today.

The fact that HUAC and Joe McCarthy are among the great American villains of the last century just shows what a great country this is.  There probably wasn't a single village in Stalin's Soviet Union that lacked apparatchiks who caused rather more concrete human misery than McCarthy and the Committee did in their brief reign.

[Chris K.]

Ken Begg wrote:

> Kazan's actions are worthy of debate, but at least be informed
> first.  After all, there were committed Communists in Hollywood
> at the time, and whatever one thinks of Kazan, such people
> should be viewed with the same contempt that American Nazi
> symphathizers of the '30s are (except that the evidence of
> Stalin's crimes by the '50s was rather more substantial than
> Hitler's were before the war).  

Funny that you should mention American Nazi sympathizers as Henry Ford was one. If you read his book 'The International Jew' (a book that Adolf Hitler himself read during his early years and became an admirerer of Ford for his Anti-Semitisim alone), the book is clearly Anti-Semetic and shows Ford's fear of the Jewish businessman taking over the international and American marketplace. All the evidence is in his book, but to this day not many people want to believe that Ford was a Nazi sympathizer. Just a fun little tidbit of info for ya', Ken.  

In all homesty, I do have a firm grasp of history. I am mearly judging Kazan through his actions, and as I see it Kazan wasn't a good friend at all. Kazan "ratted" out on friends and associates, most of whom were not even Communists at all, and while they recieved the chopping block, Kazan got out scott free and never even apologized for ruining his friends lives. Again, does this sound like a good friend, or a good man for that matter? I don't think so, but then this is just my opinion. It seems that Kazan was looking after for his career, but where was his principles or his compassions for that matter. And because of this, he really doesn't deserve any respect from me. One would think it's "Sour Grapes", but it's not as I am judging him on principles and his attitude.

Still, Kazan did make some good films.

[Ken Begg]

On your first point, exactly.  The reputation of Henry Ford is considerably tarnished today because of his Nazi symphathizing.  So should anyone's who was a Communist in the '50s.  Instead, they are largely considered as heroes in a white hat/black hat view of the era, with McCarthy and Huac taking the villain's side.  

If you feel I was wrong to impugn your knowledge of history, then back at you.  Ford is hardly a hero of mine.  If 'not many' believe he was a gross anti-semite, it's because it's there's a derth of knowledge about history in this country.  I doubt most people have more than a very vague idea of who Ford is.  And if it wasn't for the car company, it would be rather less than that.

To the extent that Kazan 'ratted' on innocents, that is obviously a blight on his character.  However, testifying before the HUAC committee is less of a blight, in itself, than being a puppet of history's greatest mass murderer.  One is at its base defensible, the other isn't.  

If your problem with Kazan is exactly as you state, then we'll agree to disagree on the level of censure he deserves.  If you actually believe that testifying before HUAC was worse than being a communist, however, then I cant' respect your views at all.  

So let's cut to the chase:  Do you believe that people who were committed Communists in the '50s are as morally blighted as people like Ford?

[Chris K.]

Ken Begg wrote:

>If you feel I was wrong to impugn your knowledge of history,
>then back at you. Ford is hardly a hero of mine. If 'not many'
>believe he was a gross anti-semite, it's because it's there's
> a derth of knowledge about history in this country.

Again, funny that you mention this. I do remember one time discussing Ford's Anti-Semitisim and his book 'The International Jew' to somebody at my college and their response was that it was all Democrat, revisionist history (and I'm not a Liberal or a Conservative). My response: "Read Ford's book and you'll be suprised how wrong you are." So I guess their is a derth of knowledge in this country after all.

> If your problem with Kazan is exactly as you state, then we'll
> agree to disagree on the level of censure he deserves.  If you
> actually believe that testifying before HUAC was worse than
> being a communist, however, then I cant' respect your views at
> all.  

How about BOTH being a Communist and testifying before the HUAC
are worse? I would not go so far as that. But then, I don't think that testifying before the HUAC was worse than being a Communist. Kazan testified, but he testified in order to save his own back and named names who were not even part of the Communist party. That, in my belief, is really low and is, to a full extent, quite wrong. Their was no principles in Kazam's testimony at all. Now if most of the names Kazam revealed WERE part of the Communist Party, then I would say he did right. Sadly, he didn't. It was as if he turned in false names so that he could have one step ahead of them in the film industry, and it might have been his intentions.

Let me restate, if Kazam would have had real names who were in the Communist Party and testified them, the man would have done right. But then, Kazam revealed names of friends who were not associated with the party. I don't think it was wrong to testify before HUAC, but to testify info that was quite false and done just to escape the situation shows to me what the man really was.  

> So let's cut to the chase:  Do you believe that people who were
> committed Communists in the '50s are as morally blighted as
> people like Ford?

Ken, it's hard for me to come to this conclusion due to the very little time I have now. I would like to hear your answer first before coming to mine. And I'm not doing this to deviate from the question at all, I would just like to hear your take on the question. When I get back, I'll answer what I know so far.

But again, my criticisim of Kazam is of his attitude and principles, which I felt he had none. As good a filmmaker Kazan was, what Kazam did to his friends and associates was a gruesome stab in the back. Film director Ray Dennis Steckler, and I know you are familiar with this guy's work, said it best in a recent video interview: "In life, you only really enjoy things if you earned them. If you really earned something, it tastes so much better." And as I see it, Kazam didn't earn his directing fame. It was handed to him, with friends being trampled underneath his feet, and in the end who suffered to get where he was. His friends, not himself.

Also please do not take my earlier comment towards Kazam as a vicious attack, which it is not. It's just that when a man like Kazam, screwing his good friends in order to move one step ahead of them and is considered to be a great man in the industry, it's just sad to me. Kazam might have made good films, but to me being a good filmmaker is reflected on your attitude towards your associates who have worked next to you.

[Ken Begg]

Chris --

Short answer:  Yes, I do think actual American Communists in the '50s are at least as morally tainted as American Nazi symps of the '30s.  At best, they were what Stalin himself described as "useful idiots,' not exactly a proud label.  

However, those who never in their hearts recanted their Communism as the facts of the situation became (even more) inescapable are, to me, literally monsters, just as neo-Nazis are.  Some Hollywooders, like actress Gale Sondergaard, definately make this list.  People who still defend the Rosenbergs or Alger Hiss as innocents are in the same boat, because either they're intentially lying in the cause of totalitarianism or are, to all intents and purposes, insane.

I'd write at greater length, but I get to (oh, joy) attend a four-hour mandatory Violence in the Workplace seminar this afternoon, and needless to say, this leaves me in a foul mood.   I can already sense the dreaded small group exercises to come.

The guy who laughed off your facts about Ford might be a conservative, but he is also obviously an idiot.  At the very least--the very least--he should have asked to see your evidence and examined it before answering.  In my experience, most people today laugh off the idea that Communism was a very real toltalitarian threat in the '50s, and was a clear and present danger to the US.  Few seem informed of the facts, and are just regurgitating views they learned in school and from a constant barrage of historical revisionism issued by Hollywood through the decades since.  

I'm not sure I agree with the depths of your revulsion for Kazan, but I acknowledge that at least you generally know what you're talking about.  Congrats, because frankly, I can't often make that statement.

[The Burgomaster]

This is amazing. I would have guessed that Kazan had died years ago.

[Evil Matt]

You're getting off easy.  At least you get some good old fashioned exciting violence.  I just had to sit through two days' worth of training on Ethics and Good Business Practices presented by (are you ready for this?) MCI/Worldcom.  On my next pay stub, between my weekly net pay and the deductions for my benefits, I fully expect Worldcom to give me back the several hours of my life they took from me.

[Chris K.]

Ken Begg wrote:

> Short answer:  Yes, I do think actual American Communists in
> the '50s are at least as morally tainted as American Nazi symps
> of the '30s.  At best, they were what Stalin himself described
> as "useful idiots,' not exactly a proud label.  

Well I'm back from my long and stressful work environment, and I'm here to respond. Thank you for your short answer and, after thinking it all over at work, I too would have to agree with your answer in that American Communists in the 50's are moraly tainted as American Nazi sympathizers of the 30's. And I'm not saying this in an "I-can't-answer-the-question" form. When you have more time to ponder over the question, you'll be able to understand it more. All and all, I agree.

> I'm not sure I agree with the depths of your revulsion for
> Kazan, but I acknowledge that at least you generally know what
> you're talking about.  Congrats, because frankly, I can't often
> make that statement.

I wouldn't say my statments towards Elia Kazan are "revulsion", rather my attitude towards him is that of disappointment. Even after all these years, Kazan could have apologized to those he had ruined and if he did it wouldn't have affected how he has been portrayed in this world. I do think that we can agree that Kazan was a good director and writer.

Oh and Ken, did you like my Ray Dennis Steckler quote? It really came to mind when I was writing my earlier response.

[Scott]

Streetcar Named Desire, On the Waterfront, East of Eden are great films. I wonder what Marlon Brando is thinking right now? Can Brando make on more great film?