“Blazing the Trail for an Antisemitism Cycle”: Noir and Right-Wing Extremism in “Crossfire”, “Violence”, and “Open Secret”
“In 1946, after five years of enforced optimism and prosocial posturing American movie screens suddenly darkened,” Thomas Schatz argues (378). This darkening was noted by David Marsham in Life magazine when he wrote: “Whoever went to the movies with any regularity in 1946 was caught in the midst of Hollywood’s profound affection for morbid drama…From January through December deep shadows, clutching hands, exploding revolvers, sadistic villains and heroines tormented with deeply rooted diseases of the mind flashed across the screen in a panting display of psychoneuroses, unsublimated sex and murder most foul” (qtd in Schatz 378).
What Marsham describes is what today is recognized as the basis of what French critics Raymond Borde and Etienne Chaumont labeled as film noir after viewing films in France which French audiences had been prevented from seeing because of WW II and the nation’s occupation by the Nazis. They coined the term to highlight how the Hollywood films from the mid 1940s they saw that included The Maltese Falcon (Huston, 1941), Laura (Preminger, 1944), Murder my Sweet (Dmytryk, 1944), Double Indemnity (Wilder, 1944), and The Woman in the Window (Lang, 1944), according to their reading, deviated from Hollywood’s storytelling and aesthetic model of the 1930s with an increasing sense of confusion, unease, and violence that as they noted in their book shows how “the moral ambivalence, the criminality, the complex, contradictions in motives and events, all conspire to make the viewer co-experience the anguish and insecurity which are the true emotions…” and from this experience they argued viewers would experience a sense of alienation and fear” (Borde and Chaumton 25). They referred to the films as a series or cycle “which shared a strange and violent tone, tinged with a unique kind of eroticism” (Borde and Chaumton 17). James Naremore questions their vision of noir notes that “film noir belongs to the history of ideas as much as to the history of cinema; in other words, it has less to do with a group of artifacts than with a discourse — a loose, evolving system of arguments and readings that helps to shape commercial strategies and aesthetic ideologies” (11). The term noir was not used by Hollywood during the production of these films, instead they were labeled as melodramas, mellers, or simply crime pictures. Audiences at the time, critics, and indeed even those within the industry understood after the horrors of war, American audiences wanted to see films that offered more realism. Film critic James Agee, in his review of crime melodramas in 1946, recognized their ability to tackle relevant concerns built around crime and realism noting “for many years so much has been forbidden or otherwise made impossible in Hollywood that crime has offered one of the few chances for getting any sort of vitality on the screen” (208).
The vitality that he identified as part of the crime drama has been connected by film scholars as part of the noir trend and the “social problem film.” Chris Cagle labels such films as “popular sociology” because they “drew inspiration from the school of functionalism then in vogue in American sociology” (4). These films used the genre of the crime melodrama to critique, comment on, and warn American society about social concerns of the day such as prejudice, racism, and antisemitism, all of which after fighting fascism abroad were concerns that mirrored the rise in fears of domestic right-wing nationalism which had been tamped down by the war.
Schatz points out that by 1947 “Hollywood’s film noir output accelerated and took on a new complexity as the period’s style began to cross fertilize with other emerging postwar strains” (379). One key film in this merging of noir with the social problem film was Crossfire (Dymtrk, 1947), a film which was part of a mini cycle of films that included Violence (Bernhard, 1947), and Open Secret (Reinhardt, 1948) where the narrative focus was on dealing with the dangers of antisemitism, prejudice, and right-wing nationalism in America after WW II.
1947, the year in which the mini cycle began, “was a crisis point of the Truman administration’s attempt to steer the continued course of New Deal liberalism” at a time when there was mounting opposition to his economic, social, and cultural policies (12). Against this backdrop “many in the postwar American left feared the forces of reaction, and rhetorically cast racism and prejudice as just incarnations of broader reactionary turn in American politics” (12). However, some in Hollywood, like the producer of Crossfire Adrian Scott, were convinced “that anti-Semitism was part of an emerging fascism in the United States” (12). Crossfire has been the film that has garnered the most attention by film scholars and historians because of its connection to a major studio, R-K-O and is often grouped with the Oscar winning film “Gentleman’s Agreement” (Kazan, 1947) because of their focus on anti-Semitism a subject which prior to the war was not allowed to be addressed in major Hollywood films by the Production Code or the MPPDA. “The MPPDA discouraged even the mildest criticism of an overseas market for American cinema, no matter how unsavory the regime” (Doherty 97). Such criticism may have not been possible in the 1930s, but by the late 1940s some in Hollywood were willing to tackle these issues, but the mini cycle, was short lived because of the changing nature of American politics, the Cold War and fears in Hollywood of government intervention. This mini cycle of films has been overlooked by many film scholars and historians, but as I illustrate Hollywood was interested in making films that were relevant and “vital” to capture the interest of audiences.
One of the first entries in the cycle was Violence, released by Poverty Row studio Monogram in May of 1947. The B picture examines the hardships that returning servicemen and the country faced after WWII such as unemployment, low wages, mental health issues, and a sense that those in positions of power were ignoring these everyday concerns, concerns which could be weaponized and exploited by demagogues and populist movements like the one that the film focuses on: The United Defenders. The opening shot of American flags normally a sign of patriotism and accompanied by upbeat music in typical Hollywood films here signals danger and dread with the ominous music and shadowy visual composition. Nancy Coleman plays Ann Mason/Dwyer an investigative reporter who infiltrates the organization run by True Dawson (Emory Parnell) a man who claims his goal is to help the forgotten people like WW II veterans but really, he wants to use them to benefit his own ends including making himself rich and powerful. Ann loses her memory (a common narrative device in noirs) during a tragic accident but her misfortune works to the advantage of government agent Steve Fuller (Michael O’ Shea) who is tasked with breaking up the organization and the arrest of its leaders. Sheldon Leonard plays Stalk; Dawson’s right-hand man and Peter Whitney plays Joker the organization’s muscle and killer. The film illustrates the dangers of populism and demagoguery in American culture and politics, making it feel even more relevant today. The picture was labeled as a “fairly interesting program melodrama, with a timely theme and an important message,” in Harrison’s Reports (58). Variety also picked up on the timely theme in their review calling it a “neat propaganda warning” and endorsed its box office potential noting it has “plenty of surprises to carry out commercial melodramatic aims” (16).
The more well-known Crossfire was released in August to critical and commercial acclaim, with its story of a killer (Robert Ryan) an ex-GI motivated by rabid anti-Semitism who is eventually brought to justice by a police detective (Robert Young) who operates by the book. The film was labeled as “powerful and provocative” by Harrison’s Reports who celebrated the film’s focus on antisemitism and “strongest denunciation of bigotry and race prejudice that has been screened.” (102). The reviewer for the publication also noted how the studio “deserves great credit… for pulling no punches” and appreciated that “its message is put over without preachment.” (102). Of its box office potential, the reviewer noted, “chances are difficult to predict for there is no precedent by which it may be judged” (102). The film which was made for 650,000 dollars returned four times that amount at the box office (Cagle 28). Indeed, the studio celebrated its box office in a two-page ad spread in Variety with the tag line in all caps “Daring pays off at the box office.” Embedded within the ad are capsule reviews for the film, all of which highlight the film’s importance and as one points out “blazes a new trail for movies” with its “straight for the shoulder argument against intolerance!” (10–11). Other reviews in the ad label the film “melodrama with a message” (10–11). It is likely that because of the success of these two films that the final film in this mini cycle was released the following year.
Open Secret (Reinhardt, 1948), released in January by Eagle-Lion, was a low budget noir that explores fears in the US of antisemitism and xenophobia at a time when many in the nation were susceptible to such harmful messages often couched in the language of patriotism and economic security, a similar concern that was shown in Violence. The opening shot in an under lit traveling crane shot followed by an upward titling Dutch angle of a series of backlit faces is a bravura example of noir style that matches this tale of hate and murder that begins with the kidnapping of Ed Stevens (Charles Waldron Jr.) from his apartment because he has evidence on film of a group of anti-Semites and xenophobia in his neighborhood who have been harassing people and damaging businesses. John Ireland shines in the film as Paul Lester an ex-GI and friend of Ed’s who along with his new bride Nancy (Jane Randolph) come to visit but when Ed disappears and is later found dead, they work to solve his murder and clean up the neighborhood with the help of Sgt. Fontenelli (Sheldon Leonard) and Strauss (George Tyne) the owner of a camera shop. “Open Secret” further develops these concerns about antisemitism and right-wing nationalism by offering a story of how quickly and easily Americans were willing to accept such dangerous rhetoric while demonstrating the importance of combatting such beliefs in a post-war society. The reviewer in Harrison’s Reports calls it an “an interesting program melodrama” with a “subject matter that is timely and controversial” that “may if properly exploited do better than average business” (10). Further they note how the film “shows how intolerance and bigotry, promulgated by spreaders of hate” can take over a community,” and note using the charged rhetoric “pulls no punches” words that had also been used in other reviews for Crossfire. Open Secret was included with Crossfire and Gentlemen’s Agreement by Variety, noting that along with those films they were responsible for “blazing the trail for an antisemitism cycle.” The review highlights how the film “further spotlights an incident of racial prejudice” and that “its theme possesses the utmost merit” but because of its low budget and insufficient support from the company imperils the film’s chance to find an audience. Still, as the reviewer notes, “the controversial nature of the film will impart a moderate amount of box office stimulus and producers will undoubtedly realize a profit on their investment” (10). The reviewer also uses the phrase “pulls no punches,” echoing previous reviews of other films in the cycle and ends noting that issues like antisemitism “will receive short shrift under our form of government” (10). Such a sentiment was prescient in light of the turmoil that engulfed Hollywood in 1947 and 1948 as a result of the first HUAC hearings.
The HUAC hearings and the Waldorf statement from industry leaders effectively marked the end of this mini cycle. R-K-O fired Adrian Scott and Edward Dmytrk, the two people most responsible for Crossfire’s political messaging. Many of the people involved in these films were leftist or left leaning and their involvement in these types of films was targeted by HUAC and conservative elements within Hollywood like columnist Hedda Hopper, newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst, and even the studio heads themselves. Critic James Agee mourned the loss of this period of filmmaking arguing that, “it is hard to believe that absolutely first rate works of art can ever be made in Hollywood…It is now an absolute certainty that every most hopeful thing that has been stirring in Hollywood is petrified more grimly than ever before” (286). Agee went on to question whether “anyone in Hollywood will dare to even breathe loudly” (286). Such a sentiment encapsulated the new reality that the industry and those working within would face as growing fears of Communism, socialism and Un-Americanism would overtake the nation and Hollywood thus ensuring that a sustained analysis of the dangers of fascism and right-wing nationalism would not continue as Hollywood once again embraced the tenets of entertainment rather than purpose.
So, even as the crime melodrama or noir continued being made into the 1950s, films that followed would not address those issues out of fear of being labeled as radical or anti-American and instead avoided addressing political or cultural issues that were taboo. Perhaps that is why this mini cycle has been forgotten or maybe it was just the economic reality that Crossfire was made with the support of a major studio with recognizable actors while Violence and Open Secret were seen as B pictures cranked out by Poverty Row studios with no pretension of art or cultural relevance. Still, these three films which vary in quality in terms of story, acting, directing, and look are important touchstones in a period when Hollywood made crime pictures “that pulled no punches.”
Works Cited
Agee, James. Agee on Film: Criticism and Comment on the Movies. Modern Library, 2000.
Borde, Raymond and Etienne Chaumton. “Towards a Definition of Film Noir” in Film Noir Reader eds. Alain Silver and James Ursini. Limelight Editions, 2003, pp. 17–25.
Cagle, Chris. Sociology on Film: Postwar Hollywood’s Prestige Commodity. Rutgers Univ. Press, 2017.
Crossfire Harrison’s Reports June 28, 1947. Vol xxix №26, 102.
Doherty, Thomas. Pre-Code Hollywood: Sex, Immorality, and Insurrection in American Cinema 1930–34. Columbia Univ. Press, 1999.
Naremore, James. More than Night: Film Noir in its Contexts. Univ. of California Press, 2008.
Open Secret Harrison’s Reports Jan. 17, 1948, 10.
Open Secret Variety Jan. 14, 1948, 10.
Schatz, Thomas. Boom and Bust: American Cinema in the 1940s. Univ. of California Press, 1999.
Violence Harrison’s Reports April 12, 1947, Vol. xxix №15, 58.
Violence Variety April 9, 1947, 16.
