Marta Russell
Gar Lipow wrote:
> One recent post seemed to me to show absolute contempt for those who
> oppose giving the award for lifetime achievment to Elia Kazan. The
> grounds on which this was considered laughable was the history of the
> Academy -- the fact the Academy was orginally was formed to provide a
> purpose for company union.
>
> Many institutions in our society are formed with some oppressive
> purpose in mind. Those that are not usually get used for such purpose.
> None of this makes oppression the *only* purpose such institutions
> serve, nor changes the fact that it is worthwhile to support fights
> against the loss of fundamental democratic liberties which takes place
> within them.
>
> Now if Kazan was being given an award for purely technical
> achievements, people would pretty much shudder and ignore it. There is
> not much question he is a talented director, a talented writer, a
> skilled film-maker. But as a film maker who already won two academy
> awards he is being given a lifetime achievment award -- one which
> honors the man as well as the work. Even if all that was happening was
> personally honoring a slimeball who played a key part in creating the
> blacklist, this would be worth protesting.
>
> But that is not all that is going on. Read George Will's column today.
> I am not going to follow the usual LBO practice of quoting large
> essays in full. I need only quote one paragraph to make my point:
>
> >"At the core of this controversy is the matter of intellectual responsibility. Is it invariably unjust when people pay a price for political advocacy? Should there be a penalty for protracted sympathy for obvious tyranny"
>
> I don't want to focus on the fact the virturally every word in the
> above paragraph is a lie, or deception of some kind including "the"
> and "is". Will fails to mention that "price" he was talking about
> usually included poverty at the minimum, jail quite often, and usually
> basic rights such as the right to free travel -- and that (if the
> tyranny he mentions was Stalinism) quite a number of people in the
> blacklist opposed Stalin -- not that supporting Stalin was any excuse
> for being driven into poverty, jailed, or denied the right to travel.
> This sort of thing is pretty standard Will. The key thing to read in
> that paragraph is that the right wing is dropping a trial balloon.
> They think that the time may have come for the blacklist to begin
> again.
>
> Pure paranoia? Well in one sense it is. There is no way the blacklist
> could be started if any reasonable number of people stand up against
> -- which is why getting some sort of showing is need. You don't need
> the whole academy to stand silent. (It would be wonderful, but not
> damn likely.)
>
> But if enough people sit in their chairs during the standing ovation
> so that the camera cannot miss them -- that will help to nip this
> thing in the bud.
>
> On the other hand if enough cowardice on the part of Hollywood really
> might start the damn thing again. One small piece of evidence is that
> the "Committee against Silence" which is leading the protest against
> Kazan and has taken an ad against him in Daily Variety has run into an
> interesting phenomena. Apparently a lot of Hollywood big shots have
> donated money to help pay for the Ad -- but don't want their names
> included. The usual phrase is that the donor is "in the middle of
> trying to negotiate a deal" ...
>
> The blacklist did not start in McCarthy era (which I always insist
> should be called the Truman/McCarthy era). And, there is a part of
> the blacklist that never really ended. Union activists know damn well
> that they can be fired any time the union is too weak or too corrupt
> to protect them. But a major escalation to point where a blacklist can
> be admitted and practiced openly would be a real setback. I don't know
> that odds of this happening are great. I know damn well that they are
> not zero. The effort to stomp on this weed while it is still a
> delicate young bud is worth supporting.