commentaire du texte sur Testimony before HUAC, Ring Lardner Jr
This is the transcript of a testimony given by Ring Lardner Jr, a Hollywood scriptwriter, in front of the House of Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) in 1947, that is to say at a time when the US government, led by President Truman, started a national crusade against communism, seen as a powerful and dangerous enemy in the broader context of the Cold War between the USSR and the United States. In 1947, the House Committee on Un-American Activities, set up in 1938 to investigate “subversive” activity in the US, called before it Hollywood writers, actors and directors, to investigate Communist influence in the movie industry. Ring Lardner Jr was one of the “Hollywood Ten”, that is to say one of the ten Hollywood studios artists who refused to answer the Committee’s questions about ties with the Communist Party and were sent to prison for it.
Throughout this hearing, the HUAC (represented by the Chairman and Stripling, an investigator who might be from the FBI) want Lardner to admit that he is a member of the Screen Writers Guild and of the Communist Party, whereas Lardner does not want to answer the questions because according to him, they should not be asked (l. 37): they go against “freedom of expression” and “discredit the Screen Writers Guild” (l. 64). Eventually, Lardner is made to leave.
What is striking in this document is that it is ambivalent. Although the whole testimony is based on miscommunication between Lardner and the HUAC, both sides actually raise the same question, giving it two diverging answers: What does it mean to be an American?
In order to better understand the protagonists’ attitudes, I will first question the nature of this document: is it really a testimony? Then, I will show how it expresses two different definitions of Americanism.
Even though Lardner is supposed to give a mere testimony as a witness, we can wonder whether this is a testimony or a downright trial, based on a power struggle between Lardner and the HUAC.
The HUAC seem to treat Lardner as a culprit rather than as a witness. Their attitude is patronizing, for example on lines 8 and 9, or on lines 15 and 16. The Chairman addresses Lardner as if he was a child (“That is a very simple question. You can answer that “yes” or “no”), and threatens him (“don’t do like the others, if I were you, or you will never read your statement”). In some cases, this leads to a bullying attitude, for example on lines 41 and 43, where the power of the HUAC over Lardner expresses itself through the aggressive repetition of “Aren’t you a witness?”. The hearing is also characterized by countless interruptions from the HUAC. Even though Lardner also interrupts the Chairman, there are far more numerous interruptions on the HUAC side [give examples]. Eventually Lardner is given the order to “leave the witness chair” and the Chairman uses strength (l. 92). Given all these facts, we can wonder if Lardner is a mere witness. Isn’t he rather considered as guilty even before the hearing has started?
Faced with the harsh questioning method of the HUAC, Lardner tries to fight back. His strength lies in his will to confront the HUAC. Instead of answering the “very simple question[s]” (l. 15) of the committee, he tries to resist. His pride is at stake, as expressed on lines 84-85. In order to oppose the HUAC, he tries to make them understand that they have no right to judge him on the basis of his answers to the questions he is asked. That is why he asks the chairman if he would ask someone “whether he believed in spiritualism” (l. 20). The chairman’s answer (“Oh no (...) That is just plain silly.” ll. 21-22) is involuntarily comic since it implies that the chairman’s own attitude is “plain silly”. This leads the reader to question not only the committee’s legitimacy but also its intelligence. The reader’s doubt is confirmed on line 75 by the chairman’s reply: “Never mind your understanding”, suggesting that understanding is not that important. The accusations thus appear irrational and reveal the accusers’ lack of education, as is the case here: the chairman’s obscurantism may be compared to McCarthy’s, even though McCarthy did not become notorious until 1950.
What happened to Lardner happened to many more US citizens, as suggested by the Chairman himself, who mentions “the others” (l. 8). As noted in the introduction, Lardner was one of the Hollywood Ten. We can see that the House Committee on Un-American Activities is concerned about the presumably widespread Communist activity in the US, and more specifically in the movie industry. Their underlying concern was that left-wing sympathies were corrupting the American public, and that the Hollywood studios played a crucial role in this situation as they exerted a strong influence on the American public opinion. Lardner is therefore put on trial as part of a larger witch hunt targeting “subversive” individuals who resist the authorities they present as abusive, betraying the fundamental values of the United States.
Miscommunication characterizes the exchange between the Chairman and Lardner; however, their interaction allows shaping two different points of view on the US fundamental values.
One crucial controversy in this document is the meaning of Americanism: the Chairman strongly implies that Lardner is not a “real American” (lines 81 and 82). In fact, Lardner and the Chairman have two diverging approaches of the notion.
To the chairman, being an American means being a patriot and as a result fighting communism. This black and white vision of the world appears at least twice in the hearing, first on l. 35 and then on lines 81-82, where the Chairman insists on the fact that “any real American” would not be afraid to answer the question “are you a Communist?”, and would even be proud to answer it, implying that the answer is obviously “no”. There is no room for any alternative views beside being anti-communist and any critical views or resistance is assimilated to anti-patriotism or Communism. It corresponds to a manichean vision of the world that was widespread at the time. Many US leaders thought that the world at the time of the Cold War was divided into two conflicting superpowers, and that the US had to win over the USSR in order to save the world from communist chaos, and inspire its inhabitants with what they thought were universal values: freedom and free trade, capitalism and religious values. McCarthy was the politician who most developed the idea that patriotism and anti-communism were closely related, but as we can see both notions were already tightly linked before he became notorious.
Interestingly, Lardner also refers to American core values but his references are very different from the Chairman’s. Lardner defends his “freedom of expression” (l. 66) and rejects censorship (lines 5-8), suggesting that his civil liberties are threatened and alluding implicitly to the Bill of Rights which protects the individual and the states against the supremacy of the federal government. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech. In 1947, in reaction to the HUAC’s threats on the first amendment, a Committee for the First Amendment was founded, including famous movie stars such as Humphrey Bogart, Lauren Bacall, Groucho Marx and Frank Sinatra (on the contrary, other movie stars such as Walt Disney or Ronald Reagan, president of the Screen Actors Guild, testified before the HUAC against the Communists). The Fifth Amendment, related to legal procedure, was also used by the Hollywood Ten to claim their right not to answer the HUAC questions. Indeed, the Fifth Amendment allows any citizen to refuse testifying against themselves, and gives them the right to confront their accusers and know the charges against them. All these principles were ignored by the HUAC. Lardner is also eager not to harm the Screen Writers Guild (l. 64), a labor union for screenwriters founded in 1933, during Roosevelt’s New Deal. Labor unions, as well as the American Communist Party, greatly suffered in the 1950s. The most radical labor unions were purged on the grounds that they were too close to Communism, and the Communist Party was made illegal in 1954.
This document reveals the diverging visions of “Americanism” in the context of the Cold War. The HUAC believed that being a true American meant being anti-communist and that anyone who resisted their investigations were traitors, while their targets, including Ring Lardner, held that US values like freedom of speech and civil liberties gave them rights that were being trampled by the HUAC.
Unfortunately, behind the involuntarily comic obscurantism of the HUAC, a darker reality emerges. Indeed, Lardner was sentenced to twelve months in Danbury Prison and fined $1,000. Lardner was fired by Fox in October, 1947 and blacklisted by the Hollywood studios, which meant that he could not work for them anymore. Ironically, by the time Lardner entered prison Republican Congressman Thomas, head of the HUAC committee, was also an inmate there, convicted of defrauding the American people of hundreds of thousands of dollars for his personal gain.
- Enseignant: Legait Audrey