From Daniel Fienberg's, "The Fien Print," Fall '99 From Daniel Fienberg's, "The Fien Print," Fall '99For many people, the Lifetime Achievement Award at the Academy Awards is a good chance to go to the loo, switch the station or study for Econ. The recipients are usually old, sometimes obscure and occasionally dull. This year, however, it may be worth it to keep the TV on. Rarely has Oscar played with fire like they will on Sunday night. Kazan also directed many of the great Broadway shows of the next few decades and his film work, showcased in A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, A Streetcar Named Desire and On the Waterfront ranks among the most important of the era. In 1952, Elia Kazan also went in front of the House Committee on Un-American Activities and admitted that he had formerly been a member of the Communist party. Then, he named names. And on Oscar night, he will receive the Academy's lifetime achievement award. Perhaps Kazan was simply a man uncertain of his standing in this country. Perhaps he was just doing his best to be an American. And, whatever kind of man Kazan may have been, perhaps his works alone warrant commendation. We debate endlessly the point at which it becomes necessary to separate the artist from their works. Children are still encouraged to read the works of Roald Dahl. He was a Nazi. Lewis Carroll was a pedophile but he wrote lovely books. Kazan made great movies and he certainly deserves an Oscar. But he already has one for 1949's Gentleman's Agreement. And he must be recognized for his masterful work with actors. But aren't the handful of Oscars his stars have garnered (including trophies for performers like Karl Malden who were never better than under Kazan's watch) proof of the Academy's respect for Elia Kazan, The Artist? Elia Kazan's Hollywood legacy will be honored on Sunday night but the people whose careers were destroyed by Kazan's betrayal may find it hard to give him the traditional standing ovation. There are so many disappointing things about Kazan's actions. It's crucial to remember that amidst the Red Scare, Hollywood was blamed for problems not of their making. Mainstream films were not, as the McCarthy-ites claimed, serving as propaganda for the Soviet aggressors. And while many an artist had briefly dabbled in leftist causes decades before, most of those alliances had long since lapsed. HUAC was a sham and Kazan was in position to stop it. In 1952, Elia Kazan had first refusal of any hot new Broadway property. Major film scripts landed on his desk before going anywhere else. In a time when people were afraid to stand up for themselves, many historians believe that a man with Kazan's power could have ended the hearings with a vocal refusal. Additionally, Kazan's great love was theater and Broadway didn't have a blacklist. Kazan could have refused to testify and even with Hollywood's disapproval, he could have continued to work and made a handsome living on the Great White Way. But he didn't. It wasn't that Kazan was unaware of the repercussions of his actions. Initially he said he wouldn't speak. Then he went and testified to his own involvement. And finally, days later, he went before the committee and named past collaborators, friends and peers. While it's uncertain how many of Kazan's list had already been named, it is certain that none of them had done any wrong and all of their careers were destroyed as a result. Kazan, however, didn't stop there. Days after his testimony he took out an ad in The New York Times expressing his own frustration with the Communist party and urging other to come forward to testify as he did. Before his HUAC involvement, Kazan's films showed him as a progressive, nearly leftist filmmaker. However, in his affidavit he went through his filmography explaining how each of his previous films had been veiled anti-Red allegories. And Kazan's subsequent films, most significantly Waterfront, spoke of the nobility of being a stool pigeon. So on Sunday, one of Hollywood's great directors will receive an honor long overdue, if right-wing pundits like Charlton Heston are to be trusted. But it will force many people to look back at one of the darkest periods of our century and wonder if the urge to honor the cinematic genius of Elia Kazan was worth honoring his tarnished damaging legacy. And there will be no clear answers.
The Daily Pennsylvanian is an independent, student-run newspaper. Please consider making a donation to support the coverage that shapes the University. Your generosity ensures a future of strong journalism at Penn.
DonatePlease note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.
