When it’s 5:30 in Bozeman, it’s 1985 in Canada.

Good heavens. I really need to stop sucking at this whole “getting up in the morning” game. I stayed up way later last night than I had planned, largely due to the mountain dew that I drank at about midnight, not thinking ahead enough to realize that I might eventually want to go to bed. So I wrote a little bit and updated Blog! to version 2.74, which now includes post counts. I don’t think the interface change is ever going to come, but good heavens I hope it does. This orange and brown stuff just isn’t cutting it. I think I’m just going to need to give up on finding a blue egg carton and do some clever photoshop work and make an egg carton blue. But I give away too much! It’s a surprise! *builds anticipation for something which is bound to never happen, or will be terribly anticlimactic if it ever does*

I just watched On the Waterfront in my film class. I very much enjoyed it, despite the fact that it was made in 1954. Marlon Brando (albeit a very young Marlon Brando) did a superb job of acting, as did Karl Malden and several other members of the cast. In respect to film history, Brando’s acting in On the Waterfront helped establish the archetype of “method acting” which requires performers to draw on their own personal experiences and emotions to create a character with depth of feeling and “an interior life, rather than being stereotyped figures representing a single concept (the villain, the heroine…).”* The storyline was rather clichéd, but somehow compelling just the same, and some of the cinematography was very well done, even by today’s standards.

Of the storyline itself, the movie focuses on Terry Malloy, a fledgling member of an organized crime unit that controls a bustling pier and its laborers. As the story unfolds, it reveals a series of complex questions about loyalty, both to others and to one’s self. What makes the story worth mention is that it can easily be interpreted as metaphorical for the actions and choices of director Elia Kazan and screenwriter Bull Schulberg during the during the McCarthyian era in Hollywood immediately preceding the making of the film. Both Kazan and Schulberg had served as “friendly” witnesses for the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), which is an astonishing but little known example of tyranny and intolerance by the American government.

Formed in 1947, the HUAC’s greatest concern was to stop the spread of communism to the United States. The communist party in the United States had grown considerably during the 30’s depression era, and had remained strong during the war. At the start of the Cold War, there emerged a national hysteria about the possibility of communist infiltration. Among the areas of greatest concern, of course, was Hollywood, especially with the then-emerging trend of social themes and influence on the silver screen. Hollywood was also an attractive target for the HUAC due to the high profile of the members of Hollywood. Little press would be generated if John Smith, elementary school teacher, was found guilty of aiding and abetting the communist party. In Hollywood, however, any member charged with the same would cause a national scandal and widespread news coverage. With this in mind, the first of a series of trials was held in 1948 against ten prominent members of Hollywood, mainly screenwriters. Taking the advice of lawyers furnished by the recently formed anti-HUAC organization, these ten members argued that “the First Amendment of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights protected the privacy of their political beliefs and affiliations”* when asked about the political affiliations. Their refusal to answer such questions as “Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?” was deemed contempt of court, and each of these ten served up to a year in prison.

As “friendly” witnesses for the HUAC, Kazan and Schulberg were required to “name names” of those in the industry who they believed to have ties to the Communist Party. They were encouraged to do this by movie industry as a whole, which was eager “to head off further congressional inquiry” by sacrificing just a few members.

History aside, this whole ordeal shocks and appalls. I would hope that the sort of constitutional abuses perpetrated by our government during the McCarthyian era were unique to the Cold War, but it seems that they’re not. There are an increasing number of horror stories emerging of individuals who have had their constitutional rights stripped away by the Patriot Act, without chance of appeal or due process of law. Also frightening is the fact that, on the heels of this troubled time, America was thrown in to Vietnam’s hot conflict of the Cold War for no reason other than to perpetuate “democracy” and stop the spread of Communism to South Vietnam. It’s odd to think, then, that the very same rational is being used in relation to the War in Iraq. We’ve been told that there’s an enemy, although why Saddam Hussein is our enemy has remained entirely obscured, aside from the trumped up charges of Weapons of Mass destruction. We’ve also been told that they’re bringing democracy to the impoverished Iraqi people, and we’re fighting for freedom, just like Vietnam. The situations are overwhelmingly similar: overbearing patriotism, which is capitalized on by our government which uses it to strip away constitutional rights, and a war for the sake of “democracy.” Something just doesn’t seem right.

A question I never bothered to ask myself about Hussein’s possession of WMDs was “so what?” North Korea is currently pursuing becoming a nuclear power, but aside from labeling North Korea as part of the “axis of evil,” the United States has failed to respond. In December 2002 North Korea expelled U.N. weapon inspectors and withdrew from the NPT, and yet we do nothing. I certainly don’t believe that we should do anything, but it’s just more support for the notion that WMDs were never a legitimate reason for the invasion of Iraq.

I find that I’m very much off on a tangent. The point of this little anecdote was just to raise awareness by some small amount two things: 1) the movie industry was quick to sacrifice as many of its members as necessary to preserve its economic status and 2) our wonderful government imprisoned ten prominent members of society simply for their refusal to disavow any connection to the Communist Party.

I have a lot more that I’d like to keep ranting on, but I’ll stop myself hear. Good heavens. I’ve been in such a ranting mood for the last few days…

* Sklar, Robert. Film: An International History of the Medium. Prentice Hall: NJ. 2002.