In Memoriam 1942 – 2013 “Roger Ebert loved movies.”



The multiple twists, double-crosses and leaps in logic are more likely to prompt giggles than gasps, despite the impressive production values and the earnest efforts…


Gimme Danger

This is a history lesson that, conventional or not, rocks hard. It can’t help it.

Other Reviews
Review Archives

Ballad of Narayama

"The Ballad of Narayama" is a Japanese film of great beauty and elegant artifice, telling a story of startling cruelty. What a space it opens…

Other Reviews
Great Movie Archives

A silent ovation

The questions about Elia Kazan's honorary Oscar have no simple answers. When the 89-year-old director of "On the Waterfront," "A Streetcar Named Desire" and "East of Eden" accepts his Lifetime Achievement Award from the Academy on March 20, there will probably be as many boos as cheers. I will be doing neither: just watching silently.

There is no question that Kazan deserves the award for his work in film and the theater. More than any other single person, he presided over the modernization of American film acting. From the dawn of cinema until the late 1940s, actors' styles ranged from the melodramatic to the mannered to the realistic and relaxed--and then came Kazan with actors like Marlon Brando, Eva Marie Saint and James Dean, to change everything, even our ideas of what was realistic.

The Method, the new style was called, and it took shape at the Actors' Studio, which Kazan co-founded. It advised actors to reach within themselves for emotional touchstones to apply to the characters they were playing. It could also became a fearless exercise in self-revelation, and when Brando appeared in "Streetcar" and "Waterfront" there was the feeling he was baring his soul to the camera. Great stars of earlier years would have been too protective of their images to put themselves on display like that.

Those key films changed American movie acting for good. Kazan, however, did something else to assure his immortality. At the time of the congressional witchhunts, when the House Un-American Activities Committee made unconstitutional probes into the political beliefs of citizens, Kazan named names. In 1952, he told HUAC of colleagues who were allegedly Communist party members. He did it, he says, for two reasons: Because he didn't want to lose his ability to work, and because he thought communism represented a genuine threat to democracy.

He did, ironically, lose the ability to work in some ways: He knew, he said, he'd never get the right to direct another play by Arthur Miller, whose "Death of a Salesman" he brought to Broadway.* And of course his testimony helped others to lose their freedom to work. But he was right about communism. It has become clear over the years that Soviet communism was not what it claimed--that when all the dead are added up, Stalin's toll of innocent victims was comparable to Hitler's.

The problem with Kazan's testimony is that the evil of communism and the danger of subversion were not really the point. The purpose of the "un-American" hearings was to smear--to enforce guilt by association, to use congressional power to destroy careers in a way that would not have been proper in a courtroom.

Kazan was being asked to supply the names of people who, in most cases, had not belonged to the party for years--who were communists when that was perfectly legal, and indeed when America and Russia were allies. The witchhunts were show trials, just like under Stalin. They assumed that the end justified the means (the same rationale used by the Ken Starr circus). They used the threat of contempt of congress to coerce American citizens into answering questions that no citizen should be asked by such a forum. They created a hysteria that was a greater threat to our freedoms than the feeble American Communist Party ever represented.

So Kazan cooperated with an illegal and immoral investigation. That is the point. To name names was to give legitimacy to unconstitutional demagoguery. Even the staunchest anti-Communist could, and should, have refused to answer such questions. Now, nearing the end of his life, Kazan is being honored for his work. It is work worthy of honor. It is right to give him the Oscar -- and right, perhaps, not to applaud, but simply to observe.

* He was wrong about Miller. He directed Miller's "After the Fall" at Lincoln Center in 1964. Miller did not forgive him for naming names, but decided Kazan was the best possible director for the play.

Popular Blog Posts

Who do you read? Good Roger, or Bad Roger?

This message came to me from a reader named Peter Svensland. He and a fr...

No Longer an Inconceivable Future: The Vision of Alfonso Cuarón's "Children of Men"

FFC Seongyong Cho on watching 2006's dystopian thriller "Children of Men" ten years later.

Eye Protein: The Beauty of Trilogía de Guillermo del Toro

A review of Criterion's new box set of Guillermo del Toro films.

Hooray for Hillary: Commander-in-Chief

An article about Hillary Clinton's historic nomination as the first female presidential candidate and the most qualif...

Reveal Comments
comments powered by Disqus