Robert Young neglects to mention coloured people

To tackle the issue or discrimination against blacks was outside the scope of this film, and would have been extremely controversial for 1947 Hollywood. The movie makers wanted to be thought-provoking but were wary of going too far (hence the abandonment of the homosexuality theme).

What comes to my mind is the old adage, is the glass half full or half empty?

In 1947, racism was so entrenched in America that even many people who were against it might have thought it was an ugly fact of life that was there to stay. Also, race was considered such an explosive issue that the films only gradually began to confront it, and not in a big way until the sixties.

At the time, America had just defeated Nazi Germany, but not before the holocaust had been revealed. There was discrimination against Jews in tbe United States.If a screenplay was to take a chance on exposing bigotry, anti-Semitism could have seemed like a good place to start.

Crossfire was based on the novel The Brick Foxhole. In the
book, the murder victim is killed because he's gay.
Homosexuality couldn't be mentioned in the films then, so the story was changed to make the victim Jewish. The filmmakers went as far they could realistically.

While one focus of the screenplay is soldiers returning from war, it also gives us a brutal picture of anti-Semitism, the first film out of Hollywood to do so. The film has an edge to it that took a chance with moviegoers.


Later that year, another film about anti-Semitism,Gentleman's Agreement, was released. It won the Oscar for Best Picture. But Crossfire delivers it's message more strongly. Did Crossfire make audiences more receptive to Gentleman's Agreement?


Finlay could have talked about the racism that was widespread then with legal segregation in much of the country. There had been the internment of Japanese-Americans
during tbe war. But because of his background, descended from
an immigrant who was murdered because he was an Irish Catholic, he made his point the best way he knew how. It was staying true to his character.

His lecture couldn't possibly cover every target of bias in our history. A!so,
as someone has pointed out, he stuck to the category of religious persecution. He didn't get to Muslims, but his main idea would apply to how tney are treated today.



So, Crossfire at least made the glass half full.

He didn't talk about homosexuals, one of whom is killed in the book this movie is based on. He also didn't talk about small people, Pacific Islanders, or people with flat feet. I'm pretty upset. :-)