A little background to the film's time period may be helpful.
It's 1951. Communist Chinese forces have pushed US-led UN forces back to the Korean border between North and South. Meanwhile Soviet troops occupy much of Europe following WWII, while Soviet scientists explode the first A-bomb outside the US. Thus, anxiety grips much of America as fears of losing the Cold War heats up. So, what are our congressional politicians doing to reverse the tide. That's a question many of the time were understandably asking. In short, the country's temperature is rising.
For one thing, our guardians are zeroing in on high profile Hollywood where many Reds and their sympathizers are known to reside. After all, didn't much of the film industry support aid to America's WWII ally the Soviets. Plus, much union organizing of actors and crews before the War were led by known communists. Thus, studio moneymen had no liking for anti-capitalists wherever they resided. In short, such a background made the oncoming wave of industry blacklisting much easier.
This is not a movie for everyone since the story zeros in on that single time period and the effects of the blacklist on one man, movie director Merrill (DeNiro). Nonetheless, for those with a liking for human interest and/or that crucial time period, the movie's a rare 105-minute eye-opener.
Merrill's a highly successful director whose life is torn apart because he refuses to clear himself before HUAC, the congressional committee investigating communist influence in the film industry. Seems Merrill attended some party meetings during the war but never joined. Now he's being called forth to name names of those who also attended. As a result, they too can then be investigated and possibly lose their livelihoods, friends, and family. A principled man, Merrill refuses to cooperate, which means being blacklisted by the studios and a loss of assets including his ex-wife's (Bening) and son's house and home. In short, acting on conscience is costing him dearly, but can he continue to refuse as his life collapses around him. That's the crux of the plot. And it's not just a conflict between principle and success since his wife and child are also suffering because of his persistent refusal.
Within limits, the movie's very well done. DeNiro refuses to go over-the-top in a role that could have easily done so. Still, for all the movie's assets-- especially a willingness to draw in a broad range of show-biz functionaries-- one crucial compromise occurs that colors the rest. In short, Merrill is made a liberal rather than a communist or even an ex-communist. Thus, deeper, more intractable, conflicts of a political and ethical nature are avoided. After all, if he were even just an ex-red, then questions could arise about his patriotic support for the war in Korea or how he might politically color the films he works on. Then too, the film avoids the highly charged Cold War atmosphere of the time, such that the basic conflict appears to involve only show-biz and overly ambitious politicos. Thus, a crucial concession is made that helps turn the upshot into a 1950's-type happy ending. That may please some audiences but still amounts to a key drawback in the movie's overall slice of historical reality.
Nonetheless, director-writer Winkler's film reveals a great deal about how the highly charged period affected lives among even the most significant of Hollywood movie-makers. More importantly, it's one that should cause viewers to dig deeper into the over-arching issues raised there.
For one thing, our guardians are zeroing in on high profile Hollywood where many Reds and their sympathizers are known to reside. After all, didn't much of the film industry support aid to America's WWII ally the Soviets. Plus, much union organizing of actors and crews before the War were led by known communists. Thus, studio moneymen had no liking for anti-capitalists wherever they resided. In short, such a background made the oncoming wave of industry blacklisting much easier.
This is not a movie for everyone since the story zeros in on that single time period and the effects of the blacklist on one man, movie director Merrill (DeNiro). Nonetheless, for those with a liking for human interest and/or that crucial time period, the movie's a rare 105-minute eye-opener.
Merrill's a highly successful director whose life is torn apart because he refuses to clear himself before HUAC, the congressional committee investigating communist influence in the film industry. Seems Merrill attended some party meetings during the war but never joined. Now he's being called forth to name names of those who also attended. As a result, they too can then be investigated and possibly lose their livelihoods, friends, and family. A principled man, Merrill refuses to cooperate, which means being blacklisted by the studios and a loss of assets including his ex-wife's (Bening) and son's house and home. In short, acting on conscience is costing him dearly, but can he continue to refuse as his life collapses around him. That's the crux of the plot. And it's not just a conflict between principle and success since his wife and child are also suffering because of his persistent refusal.
Within limits, the movie's very well done. DeNiro refuses to go over-the-top in a role that could have easily done so. Still, for all the movie's assets-- especially a willingness to draw in a broad range of show-biz functionaries-- one crucial compromise occurs that colors the rest. In short, Merrill is made a liberal rather than a communist or even an ex-communist. Thus, deeper, more intractable, conflicts of a political and ethical nature are avoided. After all, if he were even just an ex-red, then questions could arise about his patriotic support for the war in Korea or how he might politically color the films he works on. Then too, the film avoids the highly charged Cold War atmosphere of the time, such that the basic conflict appears to involve only show-biz and overly ambitious politicos. Thus, a crucial concession is made that helps turn the upshot into a 1950's-type happy ending. That may please some audiences but still amounts to a key drawback in the movie's overall slice of historical reality.
Nonetheless, director-writer Winkler's film reveals a great deal about how the highly charged period affected lives among even the most significant of Hollywood movie-makers. More importantly, it's one that should cause viewers to dig deeper into the over-arching issues raised there.