Moralism In The Movie High Noon

In the mid 1940’s America faced a kind of fear that many viewed at the time to be easily justified. The “Red Scare” effected many people and ruined many lives during this time. During the red scare people were black listed in Hollywood and were prevented from finding work. This is because the “Red Scare” was a point in time where there was widespread fear and government paranoia by a society or state, about a potential rise of communism, anarchism, or radical leftism. The black list came around from the idea that communists were trying to use Hollywood to influence the minds of the people and turn American citizens in to spies for the Russians. This was no easy time for many Americans, people not only abused whomever they didn’t trust by creating claims that that they were communist with or without evidence. The first Hollywood blacklist was created on November 25, 1947. This was the day after ten writers and directors were cited for contempt of Congress for refusing to testify to the House Un-American Activities Committee. The writer Dolton Trumbo was one of the individuals black listed and was sent to prison. The movie incarnation of the book about events of his life some think was a well depiction of his person and life. The book however, containing more detail and seemingly brutal honest documented events differ from the movie. These differences bring into question what are motivations, the changes to the store; and for what purpose. Does the movie portrayal of Trumbo

The Red Scare. As the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the U.S Intensified in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s, hysteria over the threat of communism in the U.S became known as “The Red Scare”. Communist’s were often referred to as “Red’s” because they pledged allegiance to the red Soviet Union flag. The “Red Scare” led to a range of actions that had a big effect on the U.S Government and society. These actions included, Federal employee’s being analysed to determine whether they were loyal to the U.S Government or not. This is exactly like Arthur Miller's “The Crucible”.

In the” Stories Hollywood Never Tells”, Zinn is talking about those who have not the word in the official history: slaves, Indians, peasants, deserters, textile workers, trade unionists and pacifists - those who have scored victories sometimes wiped defeats often, but which, in any case, have been carefully erased textbooks. The historian Zinn argues that Hollywood has become too pro-military and too pro-business in their approach in movies, and that more movies should be geared toward the average-Joe of America. As the years progress, the more well to do increase their grip into Americas culture and twist it into their liking. The only way Hollywood would start making films geared toward the middle class and show a film about Americans rising up and opposing the powers that be

While HUAC’s actions were not laudable, it paradoxically had the best interests of the American public in mind, including protecting American civil rights. Insofar as Communism seemed to threaten the American way of life, HUAC’s attempts to root out Communists reflected a concern for American civil rights. The authoritarian nature of the Communist Party, as described by some, seems to support the idea of a Communist threat to American ideals. As a friendly witness before HUAC, for example, former Communist Party member Elia Kazan confessed that he left the party because “I had enough regimentation, enough of being told what to think and say and do, enough of their habitual violation of the daily practices of democracy to which I was accustomed” (406). In his testimony, Kazan portrays the Communist party as a suppressor of civil rights (“daily practices,” such as the right to “think”

In a sense, “the red scare was basically a technique, a tool, a simplistic device for some members of the community to use against a whole set of unwelcome developments threatening those members’ conception of the perfect and proper community” (Carleton 14). The pervasiveness of the tension spread by McCarthyism was so intense, “almost any community institution may have had its own problems with the phenomenon” (Carlton 16). In 1950s America, this omnipresent evil could only be perceived as the evil of communism. Looking closer though, the extreme of McCarthyism can be described exactly this way. Just as the film portrays, those in power perceive themselves as just and benevolent. Capitalists believed themselves just, in the same way Communists believed themselves just. Leaders of both extremes saw themselves as heroes. In the contest for justice and dominance that was the Cold War, oppression was felt on both sides of the extremes. While Marco tried to save Raymond, he in turn used Raymond as a tool for justice. Raymond still had his agency controlled by Marco’s force, the same brainwashing force used by communists. Raymond serves as a symbol of the average citizen of a nation—the average, unassuming person whose agency is ultimately limited by government powers. With much chaos and confusion, just as Raymond had to realize the power being forced on him, the American people had difficulty in making sense of their world and what agency they had in the 1950s. In the attempt to feel security and control, the American government came to embody the evils they perceived in their communist enemies through the progression of McCarthyism (Carlton

Good Afternoon, let me formally introduce myself. I am the set designer for the Hollywood movie production company that you may be very aware of. I am reaching out as I have a few conferences revolving around the actions of communists that have been acknowledged around Hollywood that have been confirmed by Mr. Senator Joseph McCarthy. I do not know if you are aware but many Actors, good Actors with that being said are losing their jobs and it’s costing the production loss of money. This hunt needs to be settled in a proper manly matter and needs to be stopped. We all know that Communism is presented and viewed socially. Everyone has different initiatives as well was wants and needs and money is only being

Despite the rise of oppression and authoritarianism in societies, historically free will always prevails over determinism. Both Steven Spielberg and Arthur Miller in Minority Report and The Crucible, respectively, establish settings ravaged by authoritarianism as a means to embody fundamental concepts regarding the conflict between free will and determinism. Both authors use extensive imagery of religion, symbolism of characters and contrasting images of social responsibility and personal desire to draw attention to their idea that an individual always has choice and the capacity for free will despite the presence of determinism and authoritarianism in society. Spielberg and Miller use this idea as a foundation to establish universal messages connecting conflicting free will and determinism to oppression, suggesting that true freedom exists only when societies stand up to deterministic views designed to bring profit to only a select few.

As the movie, “No Country for Old Men,” begins, the audience hears the near hopelessness and jaded voice of Sheriff Ed Tom Bell, played by Tommy Lee Jones, as he describes his family’s lineage as lawmen and he reflects on a diabolic killer he helped to send to death row. This monologue in conjunction with the imagery of the dissolute and sparse landscape, quickly transports the audience into Sheriff Bell’s world of feeling frustrated and defeated. A world he is not sure he still wants to be a part of, where crimes are so atrocious and “big it’s almost impossible to take its measure” and he often laughs at them because there “Ain’t a whole lot else you can do” (No 01:26:51 – 01:27:47). Within minutes of the opening scenes, a significant contrast takes place. Going from the calm and reverent character of Sheriff Bell to the ruthless and psychotic creature of Anton Chigurh, played by Javier Bardem.

HUAC asserted that “Communists had established a significant base in the dominant medium of mass culture,” movies. HUAC further claimed that Communists were “placing subversive messages into Hollywood films.” In Mining Salt of the Earth, James J. Lorence reveals that HUAC held hearings on the “alleged influence of Communists in the motion picture industry.” After these hearings, the Motion Picture Producers’ Association issued their Waldorf Statement, declaring Hollywood’s intention to deny employment to “anyone who advocated the overthrow of the government by force” obviously referring to Communists but ultimately including “left-liberals of all

During the second Red Scare in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s, American’s were fearful that communism would permeate throughout their country and eventually rule their governments and entire lives. When Invasion of the Body Snatchers was directed by Don Siegal in 1956, he wanted to produce a film that creatively captured the fear of McCarthyism. The movie was inspired by the novel written by Jack Finney in 1954, which also aimed to depict what fears society had in the 50s. The film was recreated three more times, each with an original spin on the first movie and novel, but still effectively capturing the attention of the audience. The primary hope was of increasing awareness over the fear of Communism and losing one’s personal autonomy to Communism while each adaptation reflects the struggles and mindset during the time period that it was set in. Each of these films and novel, despite their numerous differences, reflect the period that they were created in through themes of losing one’s individuality, gender roles, and paranoia.

Set in the 1950s, Senator McCarthy was bringing public charges that often ruined lives of those he accused of subversion. His tactic of ‘blacklisting’ automatically denied individuals unemployment in a particular field, and the majority of the critics in the media were often silent for fear of the potential for being ‘blacklisted.’ The key to McCarthy’s success was his exploitation of the public hysteria over communism; terrified people were willing to trade liberty for safety. Edward Murrow was the exception because he took a proactive way to confront McCarthy on CBS news with the help of Fred Friendly and other crewmembers by publicly confronting McCarthy via live television. Murrow opened his first show, See It Now, with “We are not descended from fearful men- not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular…we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.”

War Room is a film about Bill Clinton, former President of the United States, and how his devoted staff led to his success in the election. The film stars James Carville and George Stephanopolous, both were nobodies at the time of filming but are now household names. Don Alan Pennebaker and Chris Hegedus made this masterpiece in a short filming period of 15 days. Though this movie is a remarkable journey through the lives of those contributing to Clinton’s campaign, the making of the film has no lack of issues that occurred both on and off set. The “The War Room’ garnered numerous honors including an Academy Award nomination” (New Challenges for Documentary, 327). This paper is going to explain how the film nearly did not receive such awards by discussing the history of the two filmakers, Pennebaker and Hegedus, and also the problems that occurred on and off set and how they were resolved.

Over the course of the 1950s, a frantic and reactionary fear of Communism permeated the American consciousness, touching nearly every aspect of American life. This fear was evident nowhere more visibly than the entertainment industry, which found itself the object of attacks from Congress, the public, and even the regulatory agency of Hollywood itself. These attacks resulted in a blacklist of writers, directors, and actors accused of being Communist sympathizers, and almost everyone on the blacklist was unable to find work as a result. However, the Hollywood blacklist was not an unusual idea, and by examining the history of the blacklist with an eye towards Hollywood censorship more generally, it becomes clear that the blacklist was barely the latest in a long line of production companies and regulators agreeing to the tough demands of the public. This trend points toward more of the same kind of censorship and coercion in the future, because Hollywood studios are facing many of the same economic difficulties that encouraged them to gleefully participate in the blacklisting the first time around.

In the second decade of the twentieth century, a man named Charlie Chaplin achieved world fame through cinema. He did so even before the cinema had come of age. Chaplin’s contribution to the development of cinema was nothing short of enormous. The time in which Chaplin’s career was flourishing, was also a time when the world was experiencing many problems. Chaplin’s personal beliefs, in combination with the events happening in the world at the time, were a driving force in what message one of his later films carried.

After the Holocaust and World War II, many filmmakers and directors neglected to create politically charged media in order to avoid criticism. Only decades after the events of the Holocaust did Hollywood start to engage itself with the topic, but these works struggled to succeed as they faced harsh comments from Jewish and secular critics alike. These films, produced with truly the most sensitive and educational intentions, ended up perpetuating ethnic stereotypes for the same reasons. There was a gap between Hollywood's preconceived notions about their productions in regard to themes and the aspects that critics actually picked up on. Through my narrative discovery, background on the time period, summary and analysis of the film, and contemporary responses to the film I will explain how these stereotypes came about in film at the time and how people responded to them while also touching on the impact of the Holocaust on survivors. The Pawnbroker is a perfect example of a film that deals with both the lasting effect of Holocaust and the stereotyping of a multitude of characters (Dir Lumet 1964). Different audiences and critics focus on these two pieces, characterizing the film in accordance with its timestamp.