Paul Henry Rosenberg wrote:
> snip .... But I think it's possible that
> we're not getting anything like an honest airing of the complex reasons
> people may be doing things we find deeply objectionable. And that's the
> real loss -- the loss of free, robust debate, without which everything
> collapses into factionalism of the most insular sort.
Haskell Wexler, who also has a proven record in making films that count, said that he originally supported the award for Kazan when Karl Malden (sp?) raised the subject in some Academy board meeting. He explained that he did it because he felt in his heart that he could forgive this old man and maybe that was best. He also said that he felt many eyes on him when he cast his vote in favor of the award.
Later, however, he said he made a mistake in thinking this way. Gee I missed the part when Haskell explained why but I can surmise that his friends who were blacklisted called him on the phone to remind him that Kazan had NEVER admitted that he was wrong, unlike some others who had ratted on friends. It would be out of character for Kazan to apologize. He definitely has got that Hollywood mogul arrogance, but I think that he does not offer an apology because Kazan thinks what he did was right. And he had the Ayn Rand people out there telling him he was right to have "saved America from Communism."
Marta