MovieChat Forums > Storm Warning (1951) Discussion > Who was the KKK protecting the townspeop...

Who was the KKK protecting the townspeople from?


I thought the performances were fantastic in this film. Rogers, Reagan, Day, and Cochran were superb. My one issue with the film, and this is probably due to its being made before the Civil Rights Era, is that it goes out of its way to deliberately ignore that the Klan is a white supremist organization. In fact, it could be argued that it may have in some ways upheld the notion of white supremacy. Several times the leader of the KKK goes out of his way to remind others of how much "good" the Klan does for the community, and that the people in the town need them for "protection". All of the characters (conspicuously white except for a couple of briefly seen extras)seem to take this need for "protection" in stride, as if it's a given. It just begs the questions who these people need "protection" from, and why doesn't the film ever give us the answer? Think about it.

reply

Everybody knows the answer to that one! They need protection from "others." The KKK set up imaginary enemies to keep everyone in line, the same way McCarthy did in the Cold War. It's all about power.

From The Straight Dope--
Though revived only in 1915, by the mid-'20s the Klan was already a powerful force in American politics - and I don't mean just Southern politics, as the Klan of the 1870s and the 1960s was. The Klan had its headquarters in Indianapolis; the governor of Indiana was a Klansman. Oklahoma was placed under martial law as the governor tried to stamp out the Klan. Public bodies dominated by the Klan included the state government of Oregon and the city council of Anaheim, California. At the 1924 Democratic National Convention, the delegates voted down a plank condemning the Klan. It's estimated that more than one in eight Americans was a member of the Klan at its height.

For any politician not relying on immigrant or Catholic votes, membership in the Klan was potentially beneficial.

reply

Just in case you should return here to see if you've ever scored an answer, I will give ya this hint: Read up on 'Protection Rackets'. Old as the hills. The boogie man is one in the same as the person/mob providing the 'protection'. Get it ?
Not exclusive to the Klan either.

reply

Although this is ostensibly about the KKK, in the early 50s you can count on films about this sort of anti-others fear-mongering theme being about McCarthyism.

reply

I know who the Klan was supposed to be protecting the people in the town from. My question was rhetorical and a criticism of the film. The point I was trying to make is that the film wimps out by ignoring the issue of racism.

reply

A brief recap of US history, which you might very well know better than I (not being a US resident since age 5): Racism in the United States wasn't only a black-white issue, historically. By the time the Native Americans had been effectively silenced, and slaves supposedly freed, in the mid 19th Century, most urban racism concerned the newly settling Irish, then the Italians, then European Jews, Germans, Polish, Greeks and every other of dozens of nationalities coming in through Ellis Island. When this movie was made in 1950, popular culture had only just tackled anti-semitism three years before in Gentleman's Agreement, and also in 1950 came pro-Native American westerns from major studios, Devil's Doorway and Broken Arrow. Storm Warning was still a ground-breaking film in its day because pro-African American sentiment by the majority of the population was still a few years away from full flourish, and major businesses like the Hollywood studios were concerned primarily (but not solely) with butts on seats. Given the lag time of generations to get over putting parochial interests first, it is no surprise that Hollywood wasn't tackled about anti-Italian "bias" in its gangster films until the mid-1930s and for decades there was still palpable clannishness in Hollywood staffers like the Irish cabal of actors at Warner Bros (as one example).

reply

I am always amazed at the naivety of some posters here, who look at the 'distant' past with no understanding of it, and with the 'eyes' and sensibilities of today; using your logic, you could say the Founding Fathers 'wimped out' on racism, as did the black slave-sellers in Africa who sold black slaves for much more than a century. You do know, I hope, that racism/slavery still exists in the world today -- in MANY places. There, they're still 'wimping out', with NO chance of films like this showing anything about such in those places -- not unless you want to risk being beheaded, or suffering some other awful punishment, for doing so.

reply

The film was about the freaking KKK. Why even bother making an anti KKK film if you're too afraid to say that the KKK is racist?

reply

It's mentioned several times -- 'outsiders' ; = 'code' for you know who/what ...

reply

"Outsiders" is a deliberately vague term. If the film were made today, there would be no question that it's black people that the KKK is against. It would not be so coded that it's almost not there as it is in this film, so as to appease the southern market.

reply

Originally the Klan was created to control the recently freed African-Americans in the South as it went through Reconstruction. The Klan also went after all Republican and carpet baggers because they had freed the slaves and were imposing rules.

After the Klan reorganized in the 20th Century, propelled by the popularity of "The Birth of a Nation," the Klan expanded its targets to include Catholics, Jews, and even Communists.

Like a certain political party, the Klan is a populist organization. It will go after any group that it can use as a focus for the fear of the masses. Its goal is for power to achieve its own agenda. It uses the weaknesses common among people, greed, desire, and fear among others to distract and mislead the masses. It is unfortunate that Communists, defined by their ideology, are included with other groups who are identified by religion or ethnicity. The Communist ideology is opposed to our freedoms and our Constitution. By being included with the other groups the Klan can be used as the bogeyman to protect the Communists, and it often is.

The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank.

reply

dmnemaine says > "Outsiders" is a deliberately vague term. If the film were made today, there would be no question that it's black people that the KKK is against. It would not be so coded that it's almost not there as it is in this film, so as to appease the southern market.
In this movie the term 'outsiders' really does refer to outsiders; people not from or living in town. The town is a self-contained place over which the Klan has full control. There are some black faces in the crowd but they would be tolerated as long as, like all the others, they knew their place and behaved accordingly.

That's what we saw in the movie; everyone in town knew exactly what to say and do. If they did not, they paid the price. Newcomers or outsiders either didn't know the rules or refused to follow them; as in the case of Marsha. They upset the Klan's comfort level or, like the guy they killed early on, dared to come in trying to report what was going on. It would invite more outsiders to come in especially those wanting to change the status quo.

This is very much like what you see going on during the election this year. All the insiders are either part of the problem or so afraid to stand on the 'wrong' side they flock to support the current system whether they agree with it or not. They obviously subscribe to that old saying, if you can't beat them, join them.

Marsha learned the lesson the hard way. She played along and did what she knew was wrong because she convinced herself she was helping her sister. Ultimately, she wasn't helping anyone and lost her sister and future niece or nephew in the process. Going along to get along may work in the short term but in the long run it is a recipe for disaster.


Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

reply