Miller on Oscar for Elia Kazan

Arthur Miller is correct in his assessment that Dalton Trumbo’s main thrust was to identify the members of House Committee on Un-American Activities as the “real culprits” of the blacklist era (Commentary, March 3). Arthur Schlesinger Jr. has said of that committee, “Little has disgraced Congress more than the House Committee on Un-American Activities. Its inquiry into communism in Hollywood was among the most indefensible, scandalous and cruel episodes in the entire history of legislative investigations.”

Let us also remember, however, that the committee could not operate without a willing supporting cast. It was not the committee but the studios and the producers who invented and perpetuated the blacklist.

Concerning Elia Kazan, Dalton Trumbo said: “Kazan is one of those for whom I feel contempt, because he carried down men much less capable of defending themselves than he. . . . He brought down people in the theatrical and film world who had much more to lose than he and much less ability to function than he.”

No one would dispute Miller’s assertion that “Elia Kazan did sufficiently extraordinary work in theater and film to merit its acknowledgment.” The academy has already recognized Kazan’s specific work in film, awarding him two Oscars. But, the academy has chosen to present him yet a third Oscar, this one for his lifetime achievement in the arts. Kazan’s collaboration with the committee in blacklisting his fellow artists in the theater and motion pictures, as well as the prominence of his role in what Schlesinger calls “those horrid times,” is an ineradicable part of his achievement. That many find the academy’s decision insensitive, shortsighted or deplorable and that they have chosen to protest that award should surprise nobody.

CHRISTOPHER TRUMBO

Beverly Hills

*

Miller asks the reader to “praise (Kazan’s) good work, and censure his (blacklist) failures.” His advice is accepted, with one caveat. Will Miller acknowledge the Hollywood left and its unquestioning adoration of Stalin and the brutal empire of communism during the dark years, circa 1930-1950? I praise all Hollywood talent of those years. However, as Miller implies, it is long overdue for the Hollywood left to be “praised for its good work, and censured for its (political) failures.”

THEODORE A. GOLDMAN

Los Angeles