It might be a distinction without a difference, but Kazan testified to the House Un-American Actvities Committee, and not the Senate.
Kazan was not blacklisted. After testifying before the HUAC in 1952, he continued working as one of the leading directors in Hollywood, winning an Academy Award for On the Waterfront (1954), and being nominated again for East of Eden (1955).
I do find it interesting, though, that he was booed, and Roman Polanski got a standing ovation.
I agree. I always figured that getting a young teen drunk and then raping her was worse than simply ratting out a few friends in order to keep your job. But then, what do I know? And Kazan made just as good movies, if not better, than Polanski.
Raped and sodomized a 13 year old. Evidently Helen Hunt is fine with applauding that sort of person. I think it is the height of hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty for some of the actors, who were not contemporaries of Kazan, to refuse to applaud him. Anyways, if he is good enough for DeNiro then he is good enough for me.
Perhaps they were applauding Polanski’s work rather than the man himself. Who knows, maybe some (or more) of the people who applauded Kazan’s Oscars were doing the same. I don’t think there’s any way to know. Separating an artist from his work is always hard.
Just to add a vote, I think the fact that he told the truth is irrelevant to the situation. He might’ve been even more contemptible if he smeared people who were uninvolved, but ratting people out for a non-crime is disgusting. Perhaps we’re being quick to judge him for it, but then again, if so many people hadn’t made his ‘understandable’ decision, the McCarthy hearings wouldn’t have gone on so long and hurt so many people.
Joe McCarthy was in the Senate, not the House. He had nothing to do with the House Un-American Activities Committee that Elia Kazan appeared before. McCarthy’s focus was on “subversives” in the U.S. government, not the entertainment industry.
True (how’d I miss that?). But I’m gonna stick to my guns here- if fewer people had followed self-interest and cooperated with either McCarthy or the HUAC, neither injustice would have lasted as long. Kazan’s individual wrongs may have been slight, but bunches of others were doing the same, which caused the consequences to snowball. It would’ve been easier to go along than to say no, but the fact that it was easier for him to name names doesn’t mean it was right.
I’m constantly amazed that at this late date people are still affecting moral outrage at the anti-Communist crusades in the 50s. Aside from the fact that it was 50 years ago, the facts that have come out have proven that there WERE Communist cells in the US and they WERE using normal people to spy on this country for the benefit of the Soviet Union. Most of them were fairly innocent dupes, but that doesn’t make what they did right.
As has been pointed out several times, all he did was confirm the identity of people that were already under investigation, and he did discuss the action with the parties involved and got their approval.
So how is it that everyone, even those who are defending him, keep saying he “ratted” on people, or he’s a “snitch”. Those labels(to me,anyway) imply a certain level of betrayal that I just don’t see in this particular case.
As far as the people at the awards show who didn’t applaud, why is it assumed they are any more informed than the people who did applaud? I saw the show and people like Ed Harris and his wife Amy Madigan weren’t just not applauding; they sat there with their arms folded and they looked ANGRY, an attitude which, given the facts that I am aware of I just don’t understand, unless they were just going along with others, in which case , they’re no better or worse than those who did clap.
Chris W
I have to side with Lemur866 here.
To those of you slamming Elia Kazan’s actions:
Substitute the words “communist party” with “KKK”, or Nazi party".
Ask yourselves “Would you still consider his actions dispicable?”
I suspect not. This is because somehow you view communism, a system that is contrary to all this country stands for, as an okay thing, but you properly believe promoting hatred is bad.
You all ought to think twice about that.
Plenty of people refused to testify and saw their careers ruined, because they believed the hearings were wrong and didn’t want to betray their friends. Kazan chose to take the easy way out when others stood by their principles and suffered dearly. (And it’s far from certain that his testimony did no damage.) He was a coward. And he has refused to express any regret.
It’s easy to say in hindsight “communists were evil so Kazan was right”, as many people above seem to be doing (generally while hypocritically condemning others for not understanding the historical situation), but being a socialist or even a communist does not mean supporting gulags and concentration camps and mass murder, any more than being a Christian means supporting the actions of the Spanish Inquisition or the Crusades. People in the USA became communists in the 1930s out of a sincere concern over poverty, racism, unnecessary suffering, the ill-treatment of workers, and a sense that capitalism as a system was failing, not because they were evil (despite BwanaBob’s hysterical denunciation above). Many people from Humphrey Bogart to Albert Einstein had socialist sympathies in the 1930s and 1940s (and later): are they all contrary to everything America stands for?
After betraying his friends, Kazan then went on to make On The Waterfront, the most spurious piece of self-righteous justification ever made. To equate his own actions in conforming with authority with those of Brando’s character in standing up against murderous criminals is astonishing selfaggrandisement that even Peckinpah would have shied at.
How ironic is it that his friend Arthur Miller made the most profound denunciation of Macarthyism, The Crucible, while Kazan made its staunchest defence?
Also, he may have been a first-rate stage director (it’s hard to assess), but he was a mediocre filmmaker. Streetcar and Waterfront would be dreadful without Brando: they’re visually bland, uneven, and badly paced.
It’s fitting that he was so closely associated with Tennessee Williams, that other great American charlatan, who painted ludicrous melodrama with fine words. Their weird pedophilia-themed collaboration Baby Doll is one of the worst films ever made, appallingly misconceived, badly acted (Karl Malden a film star! ha ha ha), badly written, and profoundly vacuous, pointless and stupid.
refusal-
Pardon me for standing for MY convictions.
I believe communism is wrong and evil.
And don’t you dare attempt to claim that concerns of poverty, injustice, and racism are the unique province of the communist party. In your part of the world, I believe you say “that’s bollocks” (spelling?)
Communism is world reknowned for the tenet “we are all equal except for some”. Look at China or Cuba. Do you see Castro living in a hut like the poorest on his island? No, I guess it’s just another case of “to each according to his need”, and I guess Castro needs more.
If I were your co-worker (and thank goodness I’m not) you’d better not tell me that you’re a member of some organization dedicated to overthrowing the government or radically altering my way of life because if the authorities asked, I’d point you out in a heartbeat.
If that’s “cowardly” then the world ought to be full of cowards!
Make it stop, Mommy, MAKE IT STOP!
Sad loss, made even sader by the need of far too many board members to play the same political games they play in most of the other forums.
The Crucible is not only just as self-serving as On the Waterfront, it’s also considerably more dishonest as a metaphor. There were no witches in Salem in 1692; it was hysterical invention. But there were Communists in the U.S. who were acting on behalf of the Soviet Union in the 1940s and 1950s. History has proven this beyond any doubt.
Streetcar received Academy Award nominations for direction and cinematography, and won for art direction. On the Waterfront won Academy Awards for direction, cinematography, and art direction, and editing.
I admit that I was a little snippy above, so, seeing that:
Anyone care to discuss Kazan as a filmmaker?
refusal, so how do you feel about the “On the Waterfront” with Brando? 'Cause every time I’ve seen the movie he’s been in it! 
BwanaBob,
Learn what your talking about or shut the hell up. You’ve obviously never studied Marxism or Communism. Perhaps you’ve studied the attmpts made to implement them in government forms with failure and injustice in the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, and Cuba, but you’re either ignorant of communist and marxist theory and doctrine or you choose to ignore them bacause they’re “un-American”.
In fact you seem to have no idea about what really is American. The constitution protects all beliefs and political (so long as no one else is being harmed or their rights infringed upon because of their beliefs). You seem to want a goddam police state where people are persecuted because you don’t agree with their beliefs; a violation of the freedom guaranteed to all Americans. I may not agree with everyone’s beliefs, but I’ll protect their right to hold them.
refusal,
I feel the same way about On the Waterfront and can’t watch it because all I see is self-justification. How do you feel about Bob Rossen’s The Hustler? Rossen also betrayed collegues during the hearings, but The Husler is like the opposite of On the Waterfront; for me it comes across as Rossen’s regret and guilt over selling his soul to the commitee, like Newman selling his soul in the film.
Also, Peckinpah is my favorite director and I never saw his work as self-agrandisment though his movies do often confront and delve into his many demons. Would you care to elaborate on your opinions of Peckinpah?