Robert Young neglects to mention coloured people - Crossfire (1947) Discussion

[–] the sphynx 13 years ago

Remember who he's talking to and when. 1947 was not exactly the right year to win over a Southern fellow by talking about bigotry against coloureds or even Asians (considering the soldiers were freshly returned from fighting Japan). Describing Montgomery's murderous bigotry as a problem that might impact Floyd directly, by affecting white people of different denominations or geography, was definitely the smart play--and Detective Finlay is nothing if not intelligent.

reply

[–] chapmanshomer 13 years ago

good point...

reply

[–] LordLustworthy 10 years ago

What I found absurd is that they preach in this movie about hate, yet the movie production code was still enforcing discrimination-and even characters of other aces coukdn't be played by actors of those races!

Arab-American Heroes: Suq Madiq Munchma Quchi - The Colbert Report

reply

[–] mdudnikov 10 years ago

No, it is not particularly relevant. Was he supposed to mention absolutely every group? His great speech was meant to apply to all forms of hatred and the predictable consequences of such behavior. He even goes as far as to include people who wear striped neck ties and those who come from Tennessee.

The irony of course is that those groups you mentioned, especially blacks and Mexicans have had things more than made up for them along the way as relates to Hollywood portrayals. While any concern about Jews or Irish Catholics has completely disappeared from screens.

And indeed if any mention of anti-Semitism does come up it is always seen as existing in foreign lands and long ago times, when sadly it is still so prevalent as current events and hate filled diatribes on such places as facebook and story comment sections well demonstrate.

reply

[–] darryl-tahirali 9 years ago

"in the speech about racial bigotry, he mentions Catholics, Jews, Quakers, etc..but he said nothing about African-Americans, Asians, Mexicans. Did anybody else notice this????? - chapmanshomer"

Yes, I did notice this, but I saw it as religious bigotry and not racial bigotry. So, it's appropriate for Finley to list other out-group religions rather than ethnicities.

------------------
"Music begins where words leave off." - Village wisdom

reply

[–] necoleman 9 years ago

I am formerly known as HillieBoliday.....Member since May 2006.

Yes, I did notice this, but I saw it as religious bigotry and not racial bigotry. So, it's appropriate for Finley to list other out-group religions rather than ethnicities.

If that is so....then why mention someone wearing a striped tie? That's a ridiculous analogy, that insults EVERYONE's intelligence!

I call them as I see them, and yes, we were deliberately left out because RACIST HOLLYWOOD WAS NOT going to include African-American peoplem or any other non-white minority in that diatribe about hatred and discrimination!

Don't know if this movie was released in Jim Crow South. I would think may be not, seeing as though the disgusting factions that inhabited that part of our country at time....totally hated Jews as well. But I'm thinking if it was released in the confederate south....maybe they wouldn't balk, because a Jew was murdered by a hate-filled white man...and that would be palpable to them. But to mention Negroes, Colored, Blacks, African-Americans as being abused, oppressed, brutally murdered, hunted down like animals, tortured, raped, lynched, etc., all because of the color of our skin.... was a blatant truth that they were not about to SPEAK OUT LOUD!!!

Am I surprised......not in the least! What surprises me.....is that it's not obvious to some on this board, and the attempt to try and sugar-coat the truth.

"OOhhhooo....I'M GON' TELL MAMA!"

reply

[–] darryl-tahirali 9 years ago

Am I surprised......not in the least! What surprises me.....is that it's not obvious to some on this board, and the attempt to try and sugar-coat the truth. - necoleman

Did you expect Crossfire to solve every discriminatory problem in one fell swoop? Was Robert Young delivering a landmark address on justice and equality for the ages?

Those are not rhetorical questions, and I think the answers to both questions are "no." As I noted previously, the crux of Young's speech was centered on religious bigotry and not racial bigotry, and you've chosen to use that as a soapbox for your diatribe. You're not making any allies with your stridency.

------------------
Those are the headlines. Now for the rumors behind the news. - Firesign Theatre

reply

[–] necoleman 9 years ago

I am formerly known as HillieBoliday.....Member since May 2006.

Don't talk down to me.....go talk to your dog or cat, because they're the ones looking up at you from the floor! You stated how you felt about the scene with Robert Young...and that was your right. I'm going to say what I want to say and how I want to say it...and NOBODY stops me from doing that...including you! And so what if I made my comment my soapbox? You don't like what I said....I really don't care!

Did I expect Robert Young to deliver a landmark address on justice and equality for the ages? NO....because anyone who can read the credits know that Mr. Young didn't do the writing/screenplay for the film and was only playing that scene with the lines he was given! Doesn't matter who was delivering the dialogue, that scene should've represented people of color as being victims of blatant racism, ostracism, and other discriminatory, socially oppressive 'isms' as well, and not some phantom entity wearing a striped tie! Like I simply stated before; for the Hollywood of that era, we were not going to be included in that disclaimer, and people of color were intentionally left out!

I'm not looking to make any allies.....especially with the likes of YOU. If I feel passionate about an issue and want to express my feelings in a strong and somewhat impetuous way about the falsities that are represented within that issue...that's exactly what I will do....and there's nothing you nor anybody else can do about it!!

Go pick a fight somewhere else!

"OOhhhooo....I'M GON' TELL MAMA!'

reply

[–] darryl-tahirali 9 years ago

You don't like what I said....I really don't care! - necoleman

At least we can agree on something: I don't care, either.

------------------
Those are the headlines. Now for the rumors behind the news. - Firesign Theatre

reply

[–] stagebandman 7 years ago

You've got problems.

If we all liked the same movie, there'd only be one movie!

reply

[–] nutsberryfarm 7 years ago

what about the amish? 

Autumn is a second spring when every leaf is a flower.-Albert Camus🍁

reply

[–] telegonus 9 years ago

Hi. I think we had some talks back in the days when you were HillieBoliday: to get into the matter of Crossfire's nor delving into the issue of,--most glaringly and urgently at the time it was made, the plight of African-Americans--this was brought up by many of the more perceptive critics at the time of the film's release.

Perhaps the most respected critic of the day, James Agee, a native of Tennessee, a brilliant writer, and a liberal in the bargain, knew the South well, mentioned the absence of black people in Robert Young's "sermon", even going so far as to mention how exquisitely (my word) the movie steers clear of any mention of race whatsoever. This did not go unnoticed at the time; and Agee wasn't the only critic to point this out.

Crossfire was a breakthrough movie, and I believe that deep down the writers and the creative people involved in its making knew darn well that the issues people of color in the U.S. faced was in the movie, as a subtext, but if they'd brought it up the film would have had at best a limited release, have become perhaps a cause celebre among liberals, but not enjoyed mainstream success and discussion.

As things turned out, Crossfire was quite the success, and it did get the ball rolling where discrimination (of all kinds) was concerned in American films. Within a couple of years of the movie's release there were such films as Home Of the Brave, Pinky and Lost Boundaries, which dealt, with varying degrees of honesty, with many of the problems African-Americans faced at that time, with more to follow in the coming years.

reply

[–] necoleman 9 years ago

I am formerly known as HillieBoliday....Member since May 2006

Yes we have exchanged views before. When I acquired a new computer/location, I couldn't remember my previous email address when we could no longer sign in with our user name....so I couldn't use my favorite HillieBoliday avatar.

Thanks so much for your educational and wise reply. I never thought about the injustices toward black people being in the movie as a subtext. Although there were no specifics mentioned about black people...I'm sure a wide range of clear and fair thinking viewers of this movie did not miss the obvious omission. And thanks for pointing out how this movie paved the way for the ones you mentioned above. I absolutely love Pinky, and have watched it so many times. The other two I have not seen...but will add them to my 'gotta see' list. Thanks again....good to reconnect with you!

"OOhhhooo....I'M GON' TELL MAMA!"

reply

[–] telegonus 9 years ago

You're most welcome, . It was so tough to bring up discrimination of any kind in those years. Paramount's top guy, Y. Frank Freeman, a Georgia showman-carny type who made it big had it specifically stated somewhere or other (I read this ages ago) that black people could only be presented in Paramount films doing menial work or as Pullman porters (those jobs paid well!), domestics and the like. Paramount wasn't always like that but it was when Freeman ran the show.

Not all studios were so extreme. I've noticed that Warners seemed to present African-Americans reasonably well considering the time. As a Bogart fan I've noticed it in The Petrified Forest, with Slim a full member of Duke Mantee's gang, and his banter with the rich couple's chauffeur. Bogart was on friendly terms with a black man in High Sierra, and very loyal to Sam the piano player in Casablanca. Then there was the dignified and heroic Sudanese in the non-Warners Sahara.

At the other end of the spectrum there was the little Monogram studio, which, when it picked up the Charlie Chan series, added Mantan Moreland as an extremely stereotyped black character to the mix, as a series regular, presumably, from what I've heard, for the benefit of white Southern audiences, who enjoyed that sort of thing, and maybe also to lessen the (potential) "offense" of having an Asian man as the hero of those pictures.

As to Crossfire, some people involved in its making were blacklisted, whether on account of their involvement in the film I can't say. It didn't help them with HUAC, for sure. The film's producer, Adrian Scott, a rising star at RKO, and gaining a good reputation in Hollywood, saw his career utterly ruined as a result of the Blacklist; and the film's director, Edward Dmytryk also suffered, but not nearly so much as Scott, whose impeccable preppie credentials did not help him one bit, maybe even hurt him.

reply

[–] jellyree 9 years ago

Robert Young is an actor.

The character "Finlay" is who you're referring to.

Perhaps the OP just wants to reach out for some sense of community.

reply

[–] DracTarashV 9 years ago

Ironic, isn't it? Or probably not since it was the 1940s. Memorable speech nonetheless.

Hey there, Johnny Boy, I hope you fry!

reply

[–] Enrique-8 8 years ago

Chapman, have you any idea how that sounds in the context of 1947? Poitier's Oscar would not happen for nearly 20 years after that. "Colored America", "Latino America", or any other America was so OFF the radar at that time. It's a good point for much too early to be and important question. Think in context.

Enrique Sanchez

reply

[–] EliotTempleton 8 years ago

In Richard Brooks' original novel, The Brick Foxhole, on which the film was based, the victim was homosexual. Would the OP like to bat that round for a while, or has the thread established the fact that the film is about religious bigotry, and not any other expression of hatred?

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]