subscribe to this page
In this chapter Byman effectively argues for High Noon as an allegory for the HUAC and the blacklist, and backs his argument up with a prodigious amount of firsthand sources, mainly writer Carl Foreman’s letters and interviews. Byman traces the course of Foreman’s involvement in the HUAC hearings and the simultaneous production of the film. As his letters show, Foreman explicitly states that he “began to write [High Noon] as a parable of what was happening in Hollywood,” and that “there are scenes in the film that are taken from life” (75). This completely corroborates the idea of High Noon as an allegory for Hollywood. Byman provides Foreman’s inner thoughts from the entire HUAC saga while providing a detailed timeline of both Foreman’s involvement with the hearings and the production of High Noon.
Besides the obvious connection regarding High Noon as an allegory, Byman’s portrayal of Foreman leaves one with a strong impression of Foreman as Kane. Although it can seem at times that Foreman is purposefully making himself out to be the hero (“if there ever was a shadow of a change that I would buy my career or out security at the price of someone else’s it was gone forever”), he was undeniably resolute in the face of the HUAC (73). Byman describes Foreman’s “personal agony,” which mirrors Kane’s agony after being abandoned by the town (76). Byman supports the idea of High Noon as an allegory not only by taking Foreman’s word for it, but also through more direct correlations, such as producer Stanley Kramer as the mayor, since both ultimately turn their backs on the men who they initially supported. Byman’s essay captures the gradual nature of Foreman’s blacklisting, since he only gradually was excluded from Hollywood as deals fell apart, which in many ways mirrors how Kane’s failed recruiting efforts.
“Red Inquiry Hints Probe on Blacklist.” Los Angeles Times 25 Sep. 1951. A1. ProQuest. 6 Apr. 2008. <http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=425264271&sid=3&Fmt=10&clientId=3748&RQT=309&VName=HNP >
This Los Angeles Times article provides a firsthand look at Foreman’s HUAC hearing, although it appears to be from a biased viewpoint. Considering the use of the word “red,” and the somewhat comic treatment given to a witness told to “go back to [Canada],” the article appears to have a generally pro-HUAC tone, which would be fitting with an establishment organization like a major newspaper. The article consists of brief summaries of six entertainment figures’ testimonies, including Foreman, all of whom are fairly uncooperative. Continuing with the theme of humor, the article concludes with a comedic anecdote of a witness’s testimony which portrays the witness as foolish. Foreman’s testimony includes his past denunciation of a loyalty oath for the Screenwriter’s Guild, of which he said, “I feel such oaths smack of a police state.”
This article effectively shows the climate of fear in Hollywood in 1951, and the smug attitude of the Times’ writer mirrors the attitudes of the townspeople in High Noon to the return of Frank Miller. The HUAC members have an air of arrogance and superiority surrounding them in this article, and the confident condescension of their assumptions of guilt following the witnesses’ uses of the Fifth Amendment mirrors the hubris found in many film villains, including Frank Miller. By substantiating Foreman’s negative views of the HUAC, the article supports the interpretation of the HUAC as Miller and the idle bystanders of Hollywood as the townspeople. Foreman’s comments regarding the creation of a police state is similar to the way in which Helen Ramirez in High Noon declares that if Kane dies, the town will die too. Foreman defied the Guild, just as Kane stood up to Frank Miller, out of the belief that acquiescence would mean the creation of an unwelcome, unjust new order.