Graham, Don. “High Noon.” Western Movies. Eds. William T. Pilkington and Don Graham. Albuquerque: U. of New Mexico Press, 1979. 51-62.

In his essay, Graham begins first with a reaction to the relative lack of critical respect given to High Noon, and continues on to critique a number of interpretations of the film. While accepting the validity of the HUAC  interpretation, Graham believes the film remains effective, even after audiences can no longer relate to any early-50s political messages, because of the depth of emotion and the heroism shown by Gary Cooper’s Will Kane. Even though Graham casually mentions the HUAC and thereafter ignores it, he still manages to touch on the general issues raised by Carl Foreman in his provocative script. Graham focuses on two issues that are enduring enough to appeal to an audience unfamiliar with 1950s politics: the “hypocritical community” and “the issue of transfer of authority from one generation to another” (57).  

            The former issue is much more directly related to the HUAC, although Graham chooses not to emphasize that aspect. Still, the way in which “High Noon mocks and derides the mask of complacent morality” worn by the townspeople is a clear attack on society (56). It takes little imagination to apply the idea of hypocrisy and false morality to the situation of the fervent anti-Communists and those who stood idly by. The idea of a generation gap, manifested in films of the era such as 1955’s Rebel Without a Cause, is only part of a tumultuous social climate that also included the HUAC hearings. Even though the generation gap might be a secondary conflict to the HUAC interpretation, which pervades the film, it still adds to the level of crisis and stress facing both Kane, standing in Foreman’s place, and the townspeople who represent the apathetic American public. Graham’s essay chooses to minimize the HUAC interpretation, but his emphasis on how High Noon revealed social conflicts in America directly relates to the flawed society in which such persecution could occur.

“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.

Hudson, Joel. "Who Wrote Lawrence of Arabia? Sam Spiegel and David Lean's Denial of Credit to a Blacklisted Screenwriter." Cineaste: America's Leading Magazine on the Art and Politics of the Cinema 4.20 (1994): 12-18.

                The article written by Joel Hudson is particularly apt for researching the production history of Lawrence of Arabia.  In this work, Hudson discusses the long-drawn-out battle over screen credit for the film that took place between David Lean, the director of the film, and Michael Wilson, the original scriptwriter.  Robert Bolt, the second writer hired to the film, until recently was the only writer given official recognition in America.  Hudson gives a detailed analysis of the similarities between the Wilson and Bolt scripts, and argues that the basic structure of the film largely results from Wilson’s invention.  He gives examples of several scenes crucial to the dramatic development of the film.  Furthermore, the writer outlines the personal and political motivations that initially fueled the battle.  He describes Wilson’s status as a screenwriter blacklisted by the House Un-American Activities Committee, and the personal grudge that arose between Lean and Wilson after the latter, frustrated and exhausted, abandoned the project.

This essay explores the relationship of workers to the Hollywood system. It examines the role of film as a medium for social change and provocation—an important tool for marginalized figures of society. It outlines the crucial ways film influences the way people understand the world. It is most important, in fact, when dealing with issues about which people know very little. This argument substantiates Herbert J. Biberman’s own ideals about the necessity of film and proves the relevance of his efforts at self-expression and the articulation of a marginalized group.   By I. Cowles

An account of the inspiration behind and the making of “Salt of the Earth” by the director himself. The story accounts, primarily, what the inspirations were for the making of the film—especially regarding the Hollywood blacklist and the HUAC hearings, which ultimately lead to Biberman’s incarceration in Texas. He tells of his experiences as a member of the Hollywood Ten and recounts the tension this put on his personal life and artistic capacities. The book delineates Biberman’s struggle to make the film—from casting and production issues to distribution challenges. It sheds a light on the parallels between the story Biberman chooses to tell through the film’s account of the Mexican Union Workers and the persecution of he and his colleagues under the HUAC and McCarthy agendas. By I. Cowles

Lorence, James J. . Suppression of Salt of the earth : how Hollywood, big labor, and politicians blacklisted a movie in Cold War America / James J. Lorence.  Albuquerque : University of New Mexico Press, c1999.

This book explores the making of “Salt of the Earth.” It explores all of the important facets of the film, examining the implications of the representation as a means of criticizing the HUAC agenda and fostering community and self-expression within an oppressively authoritarian system. Lorence outlines the circumstances created by the Cold War, explores the origins of the IPC and the inspiration behind the making of “Salt of the Earth.” He explores the difficulties of film production and distribution, and ultimately discusses the legacy of the film on both foreign and domestic markets.  By I. Cowles

This essay explores the 1947 House Committee on Un-American Activities persecution of a number of Hollywood figures—those suspected of Communist affiliations. The essay outlines the process through which the HUAC “hearings” produced a blacklist and ultimately gave rise to the imprisonment of the ‘Hollywood Ten,’ among whom was Herbert J. Biberman. The essay, however, casts a critical light on many of the members of the Hollywood Ten, arguing that many of them were, indeed, ultimately willing to compromise their political beliefs. He gives an un-traditional account of the HUAC hearings and those alleged Communists it pursued. Indeed, Eckstein ultimately writes this of the Hollywood Ten, “Martyrs, they are—but they are not innocent martyrs.” (433)By I. Cowles

This article, which begins by outlining Biberman’s persecution by HUAC and the Hollywood historical context which inspired the making of the film, criticizes “Salt of the Earth” for not referencing the industry more—it avoids popular culture references, which, Klawans believes weakens the argument of the film. By I. Cowles

New York Times article reviewing the film in 1954. Recognizes “Salt of the Earth” as little more than a portrayal of the Mexican miners and their straightforward revolt: it does not delve much more deeply into the theme of Biberman, Jerrico and Wilson’s need for self-expression in the face of the HUAC hearings (though the article does briefly mention the controversy). The film also recognizes the feminist undertones of the film. The article lauds “Salt of the Earth” as a well-made, “special interest film.” By I. Cowles