Author Topic: Coulter Oscar predictions  (Read 5199 times)

Offline Shuckins

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3412
Coulter Oscar predictions
« Reply #165 on: March 12, 2006, 03:31:27 PM »
MT,

What a load of bilge.  It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to maintain the security and safety of the people of the United States.  Do you contend that the Congress has no authority to conduct investigations to secure those ends?

Records that have been made public in the west since the fall of the Soviet Union have left no doubt as to the depth and insidious intent of Stalin's covert efforts to infiltrate and subvert the governments of the U.S. and its allies.

Whittaker Chambers has been proven to have been right about Alger Hiss.  Julius Rosenbern has also been proven to have been a spy.  The list of communist sympathizers and collaborators is, indeed, quite lengthy.

The HUAC did not set out to ruin the reputations of innocent Americans or make wild accusations.  Yet the arrogant attitudes of some of the Hollywood Ten soured the proceedings.  Indeed members of the Committee for the First Amendment, a group of liberal actors led by Humphrey Bogart), which traveled to Washington to show support for the Hollywood Ten, left in disgust after witnessing the attitudes of the Ten during questioning.

Bogart, Edward G. Robinson, and others of the CFA later admitted that they had been duped by the Communists.

In 1996 Edward Dmytryk and Abraham Polonsky, two producers who had been members of the Hollywood Ten, were interviewed during the making of AMC's documentary "Blacklist:  Hollywood on Trial."

Polonsky still held to his original beliefs, that the Party had been merely a social club.

Dmytryk, when told of Polonsky's interview, was flabbergasted.  

"Is he still deceiving himself?  He knows better!  We worked for the Cominturn, were given directions by the Cominturn, the Party was in the middle of all of it!  I even came to see the Party as a menace!"

MT, it is dangerous to discount the evidence against unapologetically subversive Americans simply because some of those bringing accusations against them are unsavory characters.  Such a head-in-the-sand stance is more dangerous than anything I have said in these posts.

Oh, and by the way, liberals have been rewriting the history of the period for fifty years.  Compared to them, I profess to being a rank amateur.

Offline midnight Target

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15114
Coulter Oscar predictions
« Reply #166 on: March 12, 2006, 06:22:59 PM »
Bilge indeed.

Quote
Evidence of leftist images and dialog Hollywood films was extremely slim. HUAC had to resort to citing the smiling children in Song of Russia (1944) and noting that Russian workers shouted "tovarich" (comrade) as American merchant ships that had run the Nazi submarine blockade entered a Soviet port in Action in the North Atlantic (1943). Even committee members struggled to keep a straight face when Ginger Rogers complained that her daughter "had been forced" to speak the subversive line "share alike, that's democracy" in a 1943 film scripted by Dalton Trumbo.


Quote
Whatever one's convictions, there was little room for maneuvering once called, yet two out of three who testified were unfriendly or uncooperative. A few, like Lucille Ball, were allowed to pass with garbled and meaningless testimony, but most were pinned down. Fame was no protection. A lifelong non-Communist progressive like Sam Jaffe was blacklisted for refusal to cooperate. Jaffe, who had been nominated for an Oscar for The Asphalt Jungle (1950) and was famous for roles in Lost Horizon (1937) and Gunga Din (1939), was reduced to teaching high school math and living with his sisters. He would eventually make a comeback as Dr. Zorba on the successful Ben Casey television series. Lee Grant, nominated for an Oscar for her role in Detective Story (1951), was blacklisted for refusing to testify against her first husband, screenwriter Arnold Manoff. Grant would eventually return to Hollywood and win two Oscars, one for acting and another for directing a documentary.



Regarding Bogart..
Quote
Soon after the Waldorf Statement was issued, agents were summoned to the major Hollywood studios and practically ordered to tell their clients that the studios would no longer tolerate public stances by performers on political issues deemed to be detrimental to the film industry. The Committee for the First Amendment collapsed in the wake of these open threats, threats so strong that Humphrey Bogart was forced to "write" an article for Photoplay magazine admitting he had been a "dope" for flying to Washington to appear in support of fellow actors Larry Parks, Irving Pichel and the Hollywood Ten.


And... most of those found "uncooperative" by HUAC were based un a refusal to name names. How "UnAmerican".

Do you really believe that the security and safety of the American people was in serious danger from Dalton Trumbo?

Paleese.

Offline Shuckins

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3412
Coulter Oscar predictions
« Reply #167 on: March 12, 2006, 09:35:58 PM »
Hey MT...I can do it too...watch this:

__________________

[The publication of self-justifying and bitter memoirs] and more fundamentally the cultural shift in Hollywood to domination by a bien peasant Left that started around 1960 and accelerated in the 1970s, has led to the lionization of the Unfriendly Ten as American "rebels" and martyred 'non-conformists."  Meanwhile, the anger within the current filmmaking elite at those who originally "named names" in the 1940s and 1950s has been unrelenting.

A now unalterable view of what occurred is held by people who have little knowledge of what it actually meant in the 1940s to be a Communist;  that is a Stalinist.  Two examples demonstrate the current political situation.  On October 27, 1997, on the fiftieth anniversary of the original HUAC hearings, the Hollywood creative elite attended a gala celebration of the Ten, and major stars appeared in a reenactment of parts of the HUAC hearing.  The evening was capped by an appearance of some of the surviving Ten themselves, to thunderous applause.

Then in 1999 the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences decided to award a lifetime Oscar to Elia Kazan.  Kazan was the director of outstanding films such as "A Streetcar Named Desire" "Viva Zapata," "On the Waterfront," and "East of Eden."  Kazan "taught Marlon Brando how to act," but he had also "named names."  The award was ferociously opposed by survivors and supporters of the Ten.  In the end, despite being escorted to the podium by Robert de Niro and Martin Scorsese, Kazan was greeted with stony silence by many members of the Academy.

____________________

A more balanced view from a participant in the terrible events that began in October 1947 came from Patricia Bosworth, the daughter of Bartley Crum, one of the lawyers for the Unfriendly Ten.  Crum was one of only two of the seven lawyers on the Ten's defense team who were not themselves members of the Party.  Bosworth says that her father vigorously defended people as long as he possibly could afford it financially, because of his deep allegiance to the principles of the First Amendment.  But the experience also made him very wary of the American Communists, because they were not in fact independent individuals but were men under stern Party intellectual discipline.  He found them continually deceptive as to their intentions and motives.  Crum was repelled by the Communists' "rude, plodding dogmatism, their habit of secrecy," and that included the behavior of the Party lawyers assigned to work with him on the case.

Offline Shuckins

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3412
Coulter Oscar predictions
« Reply #168 on: March 12, 2006, 09:53:50 PM »
Alvah Bessie, one of the Ten, ruefully remarked, "It began to be obvious that the party was not speaking the language of the American people.  It took me almost twenty years to find this out...Pretty stupid of me."  

The opinion of the famous blacklisted director Jules Dassin...is the same.  The party tried very hard to present Communist or Socialist ideas as an advance in America's development that was in fact rooted in American tradition.  Well, they failed in this.  The American people couldn't buy it.  The association with the Soviet Union was too powerful.  I remember one sloga, "Defend the Soviet Union" under any and all circumstances (including conflict with the United States) were policies dictated to the CPUSA from Moscow, and accepted willingly by Party headquarters in New York.  In what sense was this "rebellion" within the honorable American tradition?

_____________________________

The Hollywood Ten were not, as it happened, spies for the USSR, but they belonged to a party that as even left-wing "revisionists" now acknowlege, planted spies for the Soviet Union throughout the US government as a matter of course.  Ellen-Schrecker, the chronicler of the blacklist as it function in educational institutions, has admitted that Earl Browder, the leader of the CPUSA during its most "liberal" period (1941-1945:  the Second Popular Front), was in fact a key talent scout and recruiter of spies for the Soviet Union, "routing volunteers to the KGB and identifying secret Party members who could be of use."

Although only one Hollywood Communist (the minor Hollywood producer Boris Morros) is known to have been a long-term NKVD spy, that does not mean that the Hollywood Communists would not have spied for the Soviet Union if they had been asked.  Indeed, the recently decoded "Venona" documents suggest that Walter Bernstein, one of those blacklisted, had offered information to the NKVD more than once.  This should not come as a surprise.  When Arthur Koestler secretly joined the Communist Party of Germany in 1932, he remained anewspaper reporter, but he accepted as a matter of course that he would be asked to spy on his employers in the Ullstein newspaper corporation - the same people who had saved him from penury during the depression.

Offline Shuckins

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3412
Coulter Oscar predictions
« Reply #169 on: March 12, 2006, 10:11:32 PM »
...in the spring of 1945, when hard-line Stlainist William Z. Foster expelled the "liberal" Browder from the Party and took over as General Secretary at Stalin's behest, one of the first places he visited was the Hollywood Party.

The reason for the special importance of the Hollywood section is not hard to discern.  The Soviet government had an early understanding of the crucial power of film as propaganda in a mass society.  Communist influence in Hollywood filmmaking was therefore seen as both culturally and politcally important in spreading ideas among the masses to prepare for the Revolution, or at least to curb popular opposition to the USSR.

Party members boasted of "sneaking" Marxist dogma into otherwise bland Hollywood films, though they later denounced this suspicion as fascist propaganda.  The intent was quite clear.

Ring Lardner, Jr., for example gleefully told the story of his blacklist period in the 1950s when he worked as a secret screenwriter for the Britis TV series "The Adventures of Robin Hood, and slipped frequent anti-capitalist messages into a show set in medieval England.  His purpose, he said was to subvert the younger generations's beliefs in free enterprise.

In the Hollywood of the 1930s and 1940s, however, the anti-ideological domination of the studio moguls meant that Communist writers could only slip in a few bits here and there, and such bits could not have much effect.  Rather, as Party leader Foster told the Hollywood section of the Party during his visit in 1945, the Party intended its influence on film production in Hollywood at this point to be primarily negative.  Communists were to block and prevent theproduction of any films with an anti-Communist bent, or with a theme detrimental to the interests of the Soviet Union.

In keeping with this subterfuge, most Party members in Hollywood were secret Party memgbers, operating under noms de guerre.  The strict cell structure of thehollywood Party, and the secret meetings of the cells, kept many people from knowing more than a dozen fellow Party members.

The Party was not organized this way by accident, or merely otu of traditional conspiratorial or paranoid mindset, though that mindset obviously existed and was fundamental.  There were two specific reasons for secrecy:  (1) so that opinions presented during their daily work in the studiois by secret Communists could masquerade as independent artistic opinions, since filmmakers dealing with the secret Communists would not know they were dealing with Communists, and (2) so that secret Communist operatives could control the bien pensant front organizations mostly populated by liberals and ordinary leftists.

An example of the latter is the hollywood Citizens Committee on the ARts, Sciences, and Profession.  Most of the HICCASP's members were liberals and independent leftists, but the crucially influential post of executive secretary of the organization was held by a secret Communist.  The Communists operated like cuckoos, as Edward Dmytryk said, laying their eggs in other birds' nests.  Moreover, there is evidence to suggest that some prominent Hollywood people who wanted to join the Party were forbidden to become members, but were nonetheless trusted towield influence over Hollywood individuals and organizations on behalf of Party policies all the sam - influence all the more effective for coming from people known merely as "leftists."

Offline Shuckins

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3412
Coulter Oscar predictions
« Reply #170 on: March 12, 2006, 10:36:15 PM »
The impact of secrecy...meant that Party members were constantly working in the interests of the USSR, and at the dictates of the USSR, while lying to and manipulating their friends and co-workers about their motives.  They misrepresented their political positions as independent radical opinions when in reality those positions were dictated from elsewhere.  It was a cult.  Those who denounced the Reds have always been denounced as rats and betrayers, but surely there is a deep betrayal here as well.  Moreover, Communist relations with non-Communists were based on a smug sense of intellectual and political superiority.

Along with the secrecy and manipulation, and with all that entailed in terms of personal behavior toward others, there was "democratic centralism," i.e. the rule of the party over its members' intellectual lives.  There was a difference between the transitory rank and file, many of whom left because they could not put up with such discipline, from the long-term Party militants who constituted most of the Ten.

Though the Ten were all intellectuals, they accepted as a matter of course that there were books one was forbidden to read.  Intellectuals or not, the Ten accepted the principle of Party discipline lad down by the Party's American cultural commisar, V.J. Jerome:  "I asked, 'Comrade Jerome, what if a Party decision is made that you cannot go along with?'  And he said, 'When the Party makes a decision it becomes your opinion.'"

Another blacklistee, Leonardo Bercovici, has expressed amazement at John Howard Lawson, the stern and rigid leaader of the Hollywood section of the Party.  Here was a man who was a very talented writer, yet he devoted himself "to becoming a commissar;  it was a pity..."  Bercovici concluded that lawson simply had "an authoritarian character."  But a moment later, in discussing the Hollywood Party's robotic obedience to whatever line came out of New York (i.e. Moscow), Bercovici asked himself, "How could Jack have submitted...?"

Offline Shuckins

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3412
Coulter Oscar predictions
« Reply #171 on: March 12, 2006, 10:48:20 PM »
The degree to which personal itellectual opinion and creativity could be dismissed by Party diktat was most famously demonstrated in the case of Albert Maltz.  In 1947 Maltz wrote an article entitled "What Do We expect of Writers?" protesting the Party's iron demands on artists and their work.  Maltz argued that artists could not merely be Party political pamphleteers propounding the position of the moment, but rather they must be allowed to deal with the deepest and most permanent issues of human life, as was natural for the.  Further, works of art should be judged not by the politics of their creators - as the CPUSA always did - but rather by the artistic and ethical values and human insights contained in the works themselves.

This plea for artistic and critical freedom led to a firestorm of reaction from CPUSA headquarters inNew York.  Maltz was attacked for "revisionism" in Party publications.  Far worse, in Hollywood he was subjected to a personal inquisitional procedure led by the dour John Howard Lawson.  Almost no members of the Hollywood Party section came to Maltz's defense and those who did were themselves threatened with expulsion.

It took two brutal sessions of "critisism/self-criticism" in front of a committee of Hollywood Party members to get Maltz tyo recant his position.  Most of those involved in the brow-beating of Maltz were writers themselves, including Hollywood Ten Alvah Bessie and Herbert Biberman.  Two months after his first plea for artistic freedom, Maltz published a "self-criticism" and complete recantation of his plea for artistic freedom.

Maltz later went to prison rather than testify to the nature of his politics or "name names," but he told Gerda lerner that his 1946 CPUSA inquisition was "the most unsettling experience of my life, infinitely worse than going to prison;  nothing compared to it."

Despite this unsettling experience, Maltz remained a Party stalwart for many years, and faithfully followed every shift in the Party line.  He believed that in June 1950 South Korea had attacked the North.  In 1958, in accordance with the Khrushchev thaw, he wrote a positive review of Pasternak"s " Dr. Zhivago," but when hardliners came back into power in the Kremlin, he issued yet another public recantation of his previously published views, proclaiming that he had reread the book and found it shallow.  Is this man really supposed to be seen as an "American rebel" and a non-conformist"?

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Coulter Oscar predictions
« Reply #172 on: March 13, 2006, 08:21:55 AM »
urchin said...  "I feel dumber just reading your drivel."

For that I am truely sorry... you really didn't have much to spare.

If you do not see a leftist agenda in hollywood then you are not paying attention....

How much money does hollywood raise for republican candidates and how much for democratic ones..

We can turn this around.... name a conservative right wing director or actor and then I will name 5 lefty ones.   I am saying that I can easily do this..

If you accept this as true then you would be naive to think that they would not have this taint their work.

lazs


Offline RTR

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2915
Coulter Oscar predictions
« Reply #174 on: March 13, 2006, 09:05:38 AM »
The truth is, this is all a plot by the islamic controlled Hollyweird, designed to cause fear and derision in the general populous of the god fear'n regular good ol' boy Amreeken.

Y'all need to git yer butts over there and bring democracy back to the actors guild! :lol

In truth, they are just movies. As Yoda would say "it is only a form of entertainment, watch or watch not".

Schindlers list:  yep great movie, although tough to watch, and is able to make even this crusty old fart shed a tear.

Oh, and Rip?  Great thread!:aok

Cheers,
RTR
The Damned

Offline Momus--

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
Coulter Oscar predictions
« Reply #175 on: March 13, 2006, 09:49:10 AM »
Thanks yet again Lazs for demonstrating that you don't know what you are talking about.

http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Aug2003/review100803.html << This talks about stuff that happened half a centrury ago. Where's the relevance to Hollywood's output today? Oh that's right, it is totally irrelevant. Good work Lazs.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/li...5Fencoding=UTF8 : An arbitrary list of Hollywood figures who lean to the left. Where does it details how their beliefs are translated into movie output? Oh that's right, it doesn't. How much editorial influence do said individuals exercise? What scripts did they commision that led to productions with a left of centre theme or message? How much investment have they raised for production of liberal themed films? How about a big fat zero in answer to all these questions? Good work again, you really rock at this.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6508 : An unsubstantiated op-ed piece from an anonymous source. Wow, that's compelling. Bruce Willis gets a crappy deal from the "leftist Hollywood elite". Yeah sure he does; he hasn't been allowed to make movies in years! Oh whoops yes he has. Great source you've got there Lazs.

http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pubs.asp?ID=422 : Where does this deal with how "liberal" Hollywood uses it's production output to further its agenda? Oh what a surprise, it doesn't. Did you even read beyind the introduction?

http://www.brookesnews.com/040902addisonhollywood.html : Same for this one. Again, did you even read?

http://www.americandaily.com/article/2400 : another op-ed piece dealing in personal attacks against an actor perceived as left wing. No information here of any relevance to the case under discussion. Again, did you even read it and how could you think this had a bearing if so?

http://www.suanews.com/articles/edi...ophollywood.htm : Actually, I have to give you some credit for posting this one. This is one of the funnier paranoid rants I've read anywhere, even by your own hilariously fast and loose standards. Thanks for that; shame it doesn't even by a fraction detail any evidence of bias in the movie industry's output.

http://www.suanews.com/articles/edi...ophollywood.htm : Another Op-Ed article heavy on personal attacks but light on facts. Just like your posts, who'd have thought?

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1557 : Ah at last Gun Control. My faith in you as a one trick pony gun nut is restored. BUT, Where does it detail how Hollywood is using it's output to propagandise against firearms? Oh no, it doesn't, its just a whine about a bunch of actors with a high public profile but very little actual editorial influence.

Quote
..just type in hollywood left... 56,000,000 hits..


My how very scientific of you. 56,000 hits means it MUST be true. Imagine, when I google George Bush Reptilian Alien I get 196,000 hits. I guess that means that George Bush being a reptilian alien is nearly four times more likely than Hollywood having a secret gay/socialist agenda it all its movies? Amazing!

Please keep this up; you just get better and better.

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27260
Coulter Oscar predictions
« Reply #176 on: March 13, 2006, 09:55:39 AM »
Lazs, when they begin attacking all of your sources, then they are truley OW3N3D! :rofl

Offline Momus--

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
Coulter Oscar predictions
« Reply #177 on: March 13, 2006, 10:11:45 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Lazs, when they begin attacking all of your sources, then they are truley OW3N3D! :rofl


No, I attacked the relevance of the source content, which I doubt even you could defend in your own inimitably spurious fashion (assuming that the distinction isn't lost on you altogether that is). That said, I'm sure Lazs appreciates the reach aroun.....I mean the support.

Offline Urchin

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5517
Coulter Oscar predictions
« Reply #178 on: March 13, 2006, 11:31:10 AM »
Lol Momus.. "george bush reptilian alien"?  

What the hell led you to do a search on that?  

Here, in "amerihating pinkostudmuffin commie traitor" terms, I'll give em an appeal to believe argument they'll understand, since they attribute it to every non-American (actually, everyone politically to the left of a conservative Republican).

"America is trying to build an overseas empire, and needs oil to keep the imperialist war machine running.  That is why America attacked Iraq. "

There you go.  Do you think that is true?  

Do you think that ~ a BILLION muslims do?  I do.  So since a billion muslims believe it, it is true, right?

Offline midnight Target

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15114
Coulter Oscar predictions
« Reply #179 on: March 13, 2006, 11:32:19 AM »
lol... Shuckins.

I read it and culled out the relevent line....

Quote
The Hollywood Ten were not, as it happened, spies for the USSR,