tended to drive the American people away from their resolve to avoid a repetition of what was their experience 25 years ago, when we thought we were protecting great and important causes, and yet afterward we found we had lost everything we said we had been fighting for. We are dealing now with the same people who denied to us the things we were fighting for then.) Senator MCFARLAND. Of course, you are only expressing your opinion. Pardon me for interrupting you. I will wait until you conclude your statement. Senator NYE. Very well. To return to the report of Goodbody & Co. : Now, it follows, I cannot deny, that I feel that this selfish interest in dollars may be playing a considerable part in prompting some of the picture producers in visiting film propaganda upon a people with a view to getting America into that frame of mind which will make certain that America will not let Britain fail. This, I acknowledge, is a terribly cold statement, but I cannot escape this conclusion, nor I am sure can anyone, inclined to be fair, escape this conclusion. All the more reason then why we ought to have sweeping investigation of propaganda and its causes at this time. In this connection I do not have sufficiently well prepared any memoranda but I shall prepare it and submit it to the committee very shortly, going to the question of how large an ownership and control is possessed and practiced by American moving-picture producers in the theater properties of Great Britain. Such information will only enlarge upon the possible relationship existing between propaganda in the movies here at home, and selfish dollar interests in a foreign country. I have heard it said, and you of this committee are going to hear it said, that the motion-picture industry is helpless at this time and in producing these pictures allegedly carrying propaganda are doing it because of public demand. That theater goers are demanding this kind of picture. This, I insist, should make a most interesting study. For so many contradictions are presented. First of all, there is evidence of producer and theater complaints that these propaganda pictures are not a box-office success. In other words, that they are money losers to the producers and to the theaters that show them. Yet they would tell us that they are producing these pictures because of boxoffice demand; and then, when they are shown, there isn't any public desire to pay admission and see them. I have been shown by the best of authority, as you can be shown if you will carry on in this investigation, producers guilty of putting out these propaganda pictures and other producers that are laying off of the production of pictures of that kind. It is pointed out to me that generally speaking, those producers who are not guilty of pouring propaganda pictures into the theaters are the ones who are operating on their own capital. At the same time it is pointed out that those who are producing these pictures of propaganda are operating largely upon stockholders money and bank money. Senator CLARK of Idaho. Do you intend to amplify that? Senator NYE. I am not going to do it at this time, but am sure that is a phase that ought to be amplified and that the subcommittee should go into it. Senator CLARK of Idaho. You probably refer to Metro-GoldwynMayer and Ranger on the one side using their own money, and Warner, Loew, and Paramount, who have shareholders scattered throughout the country, on the other side? Senator NYE. Generally speaking, that would be the division. Senator NYE. Again I insist that here is a field inviting of most thorough scrutiny. I am told that if you do enter into that particular phase you are going to encounter difficulty in ascertaining the cost of producing a propaganda picture as against a feature picture. That there may have been large juggling of the books that would permit of a showing that money was being made by reason of these propaganda pictures, and that the only way to ascertain the facts would be to let the study be made by expert accountants for the committee, who could have access to all of the records. Senator CLARK of Idaho. You mean there might be fictitious allocation of costs to the nonpropaganda pictures? Senator NYE. That is directly the representation made to me by one who, were I to speak his name, would be accepted by everyone in this chamber as an authority worthy of hearing. Senator CLARK of Idaho. We will try to get the cost sheets. I do not know what they will show. Mr. WILLKIE. You may have them. Senator CLARK of Idaho. Thank you. Mr. WILLKIE. I do not know who Senator Nye's authority is. Senator CLARK of Idaho. I hope you will furnish a corps of accountants to explain them. Mr. WILLKIE. Oh, there will be no difficulty about them. And if you will give us the name of the authority referred to it will help us. Senator CLARK of Idaho. I do not know the name. You may proceed, Senator Nye. Senator NYE. Again and again have I heard and seen a representation that propaganda pictures were money losers to the producers. But in the very recent issue of the Hollywood Reporter I find a frontpage story of encouragement to the producers going to the plans of the Government to double theater capacity in the Army camps. This paper represents that "the industry will gain $4,000,000 yearly in giving rookies their chief entertainment." The committee is, of course, conversant with the recent publication by Lowell Mellett, administrative aide to President Roosevelt and in charge rather generally of the dissemination of governmental information-his publication of an article or book revealing large compliments to the motion-picture industry for the part which it has and is playing in his hour. This has interested me, since I have felt that perchance what the motion-picture industry was doing in the way of producing propaganda pictures was at the request of or with the encouragement of our Government, or some agency of it. I have had reason to believe, though difficult for me to explain reason for that belief at the moment, that the picture producers have been asked, even required, to produce some of these films which have lent themselves to the charge of being propaganda. Senator MCFARLAND. Charge by whom? Senator MCFARLAND. Yes. Senator NYE. I do not get the purport of your question. Senator MCFARLAND. You said that they had been asked to produce some of these films. Asked by whom? Senator NYE. By some agent of the Government. Senator NYE. By some agent of the Government. Senator MCFARLAND. Well, that is rather indefinite. Senator NYE. Oh, now, Mr. Chairman, it may be that I am here in the capacity of a witness intended to prove every statement secured as the result of every request for information that I am asking this subcommittee to undertake by way of investigation. If that is the case I am sorry, because I am not here in any such capacity. I am here stating to the subcommittee a case which I believe can be proven, and I base my case upon information that has come to me from sources which are available to this subcommittee if and when the subcommittee wishes to undertake the larger study. Senator CLARK of Idaho. Were you quoting Mr. Mellett then? Senator MCFARLAND. I merely wanted to know if you had some foundation for your statement and, if so, what that foundation was. Senator NYE. I have an excellent foundation. Senator MCFARLAND. But we want to find out what it is. If you have a foundation and can give it to this subcommittee it would seem to me to be your duty to do it. Senator NYE. I think perhaps I could go a little further than I have gone to satisfy the Senator at this moment. The informant on that score of the demand by the Federal Government and its agents for this kind of picture is one member of the producers of motion pictures in the United States today. When he appears upon the witness stand before your subcommittee, as I expect he will, I shall anticipate he will be asked concerning that matter. If there is a denial of it I have five persons whom I should like to put on the stand who heard that statement with me. Mr. Mellett in his article insists that the Government Senator MCFARLAND (interposing). Might I ask what producer that is? Senator NYE. No. I am not going to relate at this moment who that producer is. Senator MCFARLAND. We are trying to ascertain some facts. Senator NYE. When the subcommittee is prepared to go into that thing thoroughly I shall be glad to reveal to the subcommittee who the person is, but I am not here publicly going to compromise that individual in the light of my anticipation that he will say to the subcommittee what he said to me and others. Mr. WILLKIE. We will waive any matter of compromise. Senator CLARK of Idaho. You might waive it as a matter of law, but as a matter of influence in Hollywood, you could not waive that. Mr. WILLKIE. We will waive that, also. Senator CLARK of Idaho. We will call him to the stand in due course. You may proceed, Senator Nye. Senator NYE. Mr. Mellett in his article insists that the Government has not found it necessary to urge propaganda. He insists that the Government has refrained from propaganda desipte very great pressure. Discussing a propaganda media, Mr. Mellett says that: Notwithstanding that it takes months to make a picture as against minutes to write an editorial the motion-picture industry has been first to sense the deep determination of the American people and to respond to it. Second in response, he said, has been the radio. An industry wise beyond its years in its understanding of popular feeling. I hope there has been no governmental pressure upon the motionpicture industry or upon the radio to accomplish this result which Mr. Mellett presents. Abroad are endless examples of complete dominance and control of radio and motion picture by dictatorial governments. At all hazards we must avoid repetition of that sort of control here in America, at least while we are still at peace and without a declaration of war. Because it is important that we avoid this, I feel strongly that your committee should make sweeping investigation to ascertain that the Government has not tried to influence radio management and moving-picture production. With reference to any governmental part in propaganda in the films or on the air I must call the attention of the committee to a letter dated at Los Angeles, Calif., on August 14th, addressed to me by one whom I cannot now compromise without his consent but which I submit to the committee for its consideration in its original form. The letter has to do with a governmental employee taking part in a program on the air that was obviously intended to inspire American temper directed against certain foreign forces. I read, in part, from this letter: Last Friday morning, August 8, between 10:30 and 10:45, the sepulchral voice of Archibald MacLeish was heard delivering a monologue. Mr. MacLeish was impersonating the voices of the subjugated peoples of Europe who called on the American people to keep their promises and free the dead souls of these European countries. I have taken the trouble to check carefully as to the source of this program and to our astonishment, station officials inform us that the MacLeish record emanated from "The Department of Immigration" in Washington. When one of our refined members called them in regard to this she was informed "They were sent out from Washington and we have no choice but to run them." To tell the truth, we were amazed at the boldness of it. At a time when so many of our people are vitally concerned as to whether the President and the Congress of the United States intend to keep their word with the people, the idea of an administration-sponsored program exhorting Americans to keep promises to foreign countries which were never made through any mandate of the people, seems an all-time high and one can readily understand the outraged feelings of our people when they tune in to such a program. I think I should be less concerned about the probability of the existence of a will on the part of some producers to inject propaganda into their pictures if I were not aware of the part which some of these producers as individuals have taken in promoting, if not causes of intervention, then promoting at least causes of opposition to noninter vention. It will be recalled that Col. Charles Lindbergh this summer addressed a noninterventionist rally sponsored by the America First Committee in the Hollywood Bowl, a rally that had a tremendous effect at the time, a rally that was wholly disconcerting to such elements as felt that we were not getting into this war fast enough. The Hollywood Bowl was filled to capacity and the hills surrounding the bowl were vantage points for thousands of others who could not get in but who could see something, but through the loudspeakers, hear all of the message by Colonel Lindbergh. If I am not mistaken, the chairman of this subcommittee appeared upon the platform with Colonel Lindbergh that evening and knows better than any of the rest of us could know of the extent of response of public feeling toward the cause that he and Lindbergh that night represented. In the minds of some opposed to the Lindbergh views, this demonstration called for a like demonstration on the other side. And heaven and earth were moved to accomplish a rally in the Hollywood Bowl that would outdo the Lindbergh rally. Much of money was expended. Intensive arrangements were made to rally a tremendous crowd to a meeting in the same bowl addressed some time later by Wendell Willkie, who, incidentally, now appears as counsel for the industry under investigation. Senator MCFARLAND. Was the motion-picture industry interested in that? Senator NYE. Just a moment and you will see what part the moving-picture industry took in that Wendell Willkie meeting in the Hollywood Bowl. Some motion-picture executives declined to have a hand in this. division of opinion, but some of the motion-picture executives there in Hollywood exerted every possibily energy to make this Willkie meeting a huge success, which it was not by comparison with the Lindbergh meeting. [Laughter.] One studio, that of the Twentieth Century-Fox Corporation, over the initials of Darryl F. Zanuck, posted for all its employees a notice, the purport of which could not be misunderstood. The notice was as follows: Mr. Wendell Willkie speaks at the Hollywood Bowl this Wednesday night at 7 o'clock. He comes to Hollywood, giving freely of his time and energy and paying his own expenses, to speak to us of the industry on national unity. It is imperative that the Hollywood Bowl be crowded to overflowing. Mr. Willkie must leave Hollywood realizing that the motion-picture industry is behind him in his fight for national unity. He must know that the good Americans of Hollywood can turn out as strongly Now get this: as the bums and the other subversive elements turned out for Mr. Lindbergh. [Applause.] Senator MCFARLAND. Was that statement placed on the screen? Senator NYE. It was posted on bulletin boards throughout the studios. I am not through yet. Let us get the full story of what the industry did. Senator MCFARLAND. Would you deny to them that privilege? Senator NYE. No. I am trying to demonstrate the background, the spirit of the men who are dictating the policies of the industry that is producing these propaganda pictures. Senator MCFARLAND. I just wanted to be sure of what you were trying to do. [Laughter.] Senator NYE. All right. Senator CLARK of Idaho. Let me modestly suggest that I was one of the bums that Darryl F. Zanuck referred to. 63855-41-pt. 1———4 |