An Honorary Oscar for Kazan: Debate Hits a Bundle of Nerves

As deeply felt as the sentiments of Allen Garfield and Robin Bartlett may be regarding the wrongs of Elia Kazan’s behavior (“Despite Talent, Kazan Doesn’t Deserve Honorary Oscar” and “On Balance, Filmmaker Gave Us Less Than He Took From Others,” Jan. 25), I must offer my opinion as to how misguided I feel their objections are to honoring his body of work.

If we start judging art and artists by their personal behavior, what would we be left with? Not much, I fear. The two are very separate areas. One may want to personally boycott the works of an artist whose behavior they find objectionable, but to attempt to halt their recognition as art veers off into the area of political correctness--always an art killer.

Wrong or immoral behavior will always have its own consequences in the shape of one’s life. But it has never been the determining factor in creating great art. Our museums, concert halls, theaters and cinemas would be very empty and silent places if they only featured the works of those whose behavior we found acceptable.

JAMES FOREMAN

Los Angeles

Both Allen Garfield and Robin Bartlett argue persuasively that giving Elia Kazan an honorary Oscar dishonors so many others. No one would dispute that Mr. Kazan is a talented artist, but while his actions allowed him to continue to pursue his art, they denied this opportunity to others equally as talented. In nominating Kazan for the award, Karl Malden said, “There’s no place for politics in any art form.” What a shame that Mr. Kazan did not use those words as his watch-cry years ago when appearing before the House Un-American Activities Committee.

CHARLES EDWARD POGUE

Hollywood

In his Counterpunch article, Allen Garfield writes, “There is no honor--there can never be honor--much less an honorary Oscar, for one who sells the lives and futures of his fellow man.” Amen. Except Garfield has confused who are the victims and villains in this honorable period in American history. It was the communists who were bent on destroying American lives and freedoms.

Kazan’s testimony to HUAC was the act of a courageous, principled man. He was revealing facts about how an evil ideology, communism, was influencing Hollywood and the American theater--an ideology favoring America’s enemy, the USSR. HUAC was examining this threat to national security.

By joining the Communist Party, filmmakers, screenwriters, playwrights and actors were not merely making an ideological statement. They agreed to take orders to commit criminal and treasonable actions, since the American Communist Party, and the Soviet government it served, was openly dedicated to the overthrow of the U.S. government and all of America’s freedoms, including the freedom of speech and thought. The blacklist (boycott) that followed the HUAC investigations was a proper response by the movie studios.

If the communists had succeeded in their plans, America today would be a totalitarian dictatorship, with no Hollywood freely producing movies, and no Mr. Garfield being free to express his opinion.

Mr. Kazan deserves the thanks of any American who values freedom. It is the Hollywood Reds who should never be forgiven and never receive American honors.

SCOTT McCONNELL

Marina del Rey

I often wonder what all these liberals would be saying if, instead of communism, the threat had come from the Nazis. What if World War II had ended in a stalemate of sorts, with half the world living under Adolf Hitler, and some of the rest hanging on to whatever freedom was left over--in other words, the way it was in the 1950s?

If former Nazis were coming forward to state that they now could see their beliefs were not what they originally thought they had been, and they were being asked to sign loyalty oaths, to inform on Nazis who were still hidden out there, in our schools, our government, making films and writing books in subtle, yet persuasive ways--if they were Nazis, not Communists--would history view the era differently? Would the Hollywood elite and the dominant media culture excoriate the right for having exposed them?

If the Democrats had exposed these Nazis, would the Right in this country harbor the same kind of victims’ resentment against them all these years? I do not believe so!

STEVEN R. TRAVERS

Hermosa Beach

Morally, what Kazan did was despicable. Commercially, it was the right decision: It saved his career as a Hollywood film director. Had he refused to name names, Kazan would have been banished to being merely a successful director of stage plays. By Kazan “playing the game,” studio businessmen and audiences were able to enjoy “East of Eden,” “Splendor in the Grass,” “A Face in the Crowd” and other films. A trade-off? Not at all. It’s simply Hollywood Business as Usual.

And the so-called long-dead blacklist? It’s alive and well, thank you, in the discrimination against writers over 40 (and, with some sitcoms, over 30) and other crafts--including acting. Do the various unions do anything? Of course not! It’s Hollywood Business as Usual.

RICHARD STEVENS

Los Angeles

Everyone knows Joseph McCarthy was opportunistic scum, but that’s not the point. What on earth were Hollywood loons thinking when they went around saying, “Oh yes, I’m a communist”? Did the numerous colleagues you refer to, Mr. Garfield and Ms. Bartlett, genuinely believe the Soviet Union was a wonderful place? Did they mysteriously not know that Joseph Stalin was the second biggest racist mass murderer of the 20th Century? Did they somehow overlook Russia’s virulent anti-Semitism while they were singing its praises?

Evidently, during the ‘50s, it was chic and fashionable to say you were a communist, and in most cases it was merely the equivalent of “rebelling--little more than wearing your hair or clothes in an extreme fashion.

My question for Mr. Garfield and Ms. Barlett is simple. How was the American government supposed to know who was kidding? Maybe your friends didn’t mean it. Ethel and Julius Rosenberg did.

GEORGE LERNER

Newport Beach