MovieChat Forums > Invasion, U.S.A. (1952) Discussion > Why 'The enemy'? Why not call them 'Rus...

Why 'The enemy'? Why not call them 'Russians'?

posted 14 years ago by hobnob53
14 replies | jump to latest

This film is pretty heavy-handed and simplistic (and uses way too much boring stock footage), but for all its yowling Cold War hysteria there's one glaring oddity about it: it never calls the invaders what they obviously are -- Russians.

What's with this "The enemy" crap? What, the producers were afraid that, if they identified them, the Soviets would start a real war out of pique?

The lamps burn late in the Kremlin....

"Tovarishch Stalin, Albert Zugsmith has insulted us with his movie! What are your orders?"

"Launch an immmediate attack! And bring me the head of Gerald Mohr!"

I mean, couldn't they have named somebody? "Oh my God, they're invading Alaska from the west...they...they...they must be...Western Eskimos!"

Of all the mindless cop-outs. And it ain't exactly as though no other American film of the era used "the Russians" (or more rarely, "the Soviets") in describing the menace facing good ol' US. Invasion, USA is in almost every respect as blatant a war-scare film as you could imagine, and makes it abundantly clear just who the invaders are -- indeed, the only people they could be -- yet doesn't have the guts to mention their name. Huh? I mean, can you really imagine people making frantic radio calls about an attack, or watching jets bomb Hoover Dam, or denouncing the invaders over drinks at a bar, all the time calling them "the enemy"? Makes a dumb flick just that much dumber.

Of course, when they invaded the Capitol building and shot all the congressmen, they may have been onto something. Early Tea-Partiers, perhaps. Friends! Droogi!

[–] Ashley Pomeroy 13 years ago

For that matter, what happened on Saturday September 18, 2010, roughly half-ten PM to make this board come alive? Was it on television somewhere?

[–] hobnob53 13 years ago

Yes, in my living room. I ran the DVD for my wife, who'd never seen the film. Normally such an event would be followed by divorce proceedings, but, being an English girl now living among Americans, she is of necessity infinitely forebearing and, I'm glad to say, loves such silly movies as much as I do.

Ah, but to turn the tables: may I ask what, at exactly 12:20 PM on December 16, 2010, brought you to this rather obscure board?

[–] Ashley Pomeroy 13 years ago

I was watching the MST3K version! And this thread appealed to me, because I couldn't think of a single reason why they never came out and called the obviously Russian baddies Russians. The more I think about it the more it baffles me.

But I'm posting from the UK, so it probably wasn't 12:20 (it was probably in the evening - Friday 16th was a work day).

[–] hobnob53 13 years ago

I suspected you were British, as you used the term "half ten", unknown in the US. My wife and I just returned from six weeks in the UK last evening, leaving several hours after you posted. I think IMDb runs on Pacific Time (the west coast of the US), since my posts' times are always three hours earlier than when I actually wrote them. I'll be posting this around 8:07 PM Eastern Time (NY) Jan. 18, but it'll probably carry a posting hour of 5 PM.

I loved the MST3K version. Glad you knew of it. You might be interested in my thread here regarding the show's error in its "Two Lois Lanes" segment.

I thought the 'bots' cleverest crack, slightly tasteless perhaps, was when they saw the burly guy in the bar at the beginning, the one wearing the light suit and white hat: "Shouldn't he be guarding Oswald?" I think it was Joel who said it. I assume you got that one!

[–] The_Dying_Flutchman 12 years ago

Hmm. They don't call the enemy the Russians and neither did they call the enemy the Germans in another of your fave sillies, albeit not as silly as this one: "Q Planes". The Krauts are only known by the ship they fire their sky torpedo from, namely the Viking. Why oh why, the humanity!

U have to blame escalera for wanting me to post on this very needful topic.

To understand is the opposite of existing.

[–] hobnob53 12 years ago

escalera wanted you to post here?! Are the two of you nuts? Don't bother to answer that.

But Q Planes came out before the war...like The Lady Vanishes, with its "unidentified" enemy. Obviously they were supposed to be Germans (unless the good ship Viking was manned by renegade Norwegians), but I suppose living in bombing range of Berlin and with Chamberlain ready to hit them with an umbrella, the filmmakers didn't want to risk a confrontation that would have resulted in their having to try to read a note from Ribbentrop. However, those circumstances were a bit different.

So, unless I was right in my OP that the filmmakers were petrified about provoking a Soviet attack if they named names (if you'll pardon the HUACkian irony), not calling the Russians Russians was pretty, shall we say, lame.

Of course, Hedda Hopper still raved, "It'll scare the pants off of you!", so not saying "Russians" didn't diminish the effectiveness of the film's Oscar-winning screenplay, dazzling effects and sensitive performances, all under the inspired helming of Alfred E. Green, just two short years before he did what all Hollywood had said couldn't be done: bringing to the screen, at long last, Top Banana.

[–] Royalcourtier 10 years ago

The message of the film is not so much anti-communist, as the need for the USA to be able to defend itself. The enemies could be Chinese, Koreans, Soviets or Nazis for that matter. Don't forget that this film was made during the Korean War, when the enemy was Communist China and North Korea - not the USSR.

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

True, the theme was what they used to call "preparedness", with no mention of Communism. So you have a point that since the film's theme was to bolster national defense the identity of the "enemy" was as such not important.

That said, they chose the only "enemy" who in 1952 could actually invade the United States, something neither China nor North Korea could possibly have done -- especially with atomic bombs, which neither then possessed. The only credible threat in this regard came from the USSR. Add to this that when we see "the enemy" they're all white and speak in heavy Slavic-sounding accents. And they first invade Alaska, just 50 miles from that feared "enemy". Whatever else they are they're not Chinese or Koreans.

So while calling the Russians Russians might have detracted somewhat from the film's point about building our defenses, it could just as easily have driven the fear of a real invasion -- and the need for more defense spending -- home with more force. By dodging the issue in such a silly and obvious manner the film becomes more laughable and loses its effectiveness in promoting its theme.

And the Soviets were the enemy in the Korean War too. They weren't on the battlefield but Soviet pilots did fly in combat, and of course the USSR backed the Communist invasion.

[–] andrewwjohnson 9 years ago

As far back as World War one a film producer was jailed for doing movie about the American Revolution for being anti-British.

Believe it or not there was a rule in the Hayes Movie code against defaming other cultures and nationalities. During the mid thirties a producer who wanted do a movie about Nazi Germany not only had his script rejected but was threatened. Some of this was due to isolationism but much of it resulted from the fear American movies might be banned in Germany and other countries. In 1940 and 41' Hollywood started doing pro-British Anti-German films like "The Mortal Storm" and "A Yank in the RAF" Congress scheduled hearing for December 8, 1941 to attack the practice but called them off as result of Peal Harbor.

The Code was still enforce in 1952 but given the Cold War it would be hard to imagine anyone running into trouble over an anti-Soviet movie in 1952. At that time Russia wasn't a big market for American movies so it all seems sort of silly.

Of course in the eighties movies like "Red Dawn", the remake of "Invasion USA" and the TV miniseries "Amerka" were pounded by the Soviet Union.

More recently Hollywood showed their lack of backbone by re-editing the remake of "Red Dawn" to make North Korea, not China, the invader. The reason: they didn't want to loose the market for American moves. The more things change...

Then there was Sony delaying the release of "The Interview" because "the Dear Leader" in North Korea didn't like it and their computers were hacked.

TAG LINE: True genius is a beautiful thing, but ignorance is ugly to the bone.

[–] hobnob53 9 years ago

The Hays Code stricture was well-known and not remarkable. Its purpose was to avoid giving deliberate offense to others, though in practice it didn't work too well. I don't think I've heard of the WWI incident you mention but that was obviously done as a result of the (unjustified) curtailment of civil liberties imposed by the government in wartime.

But the absence of anti-Nazi films before 1939, and only a few until 1941, was not due to any governmental action or the Hays Code but rather as you indicated because of corporate cowardice. The studio chiefs didn't want to upset the German market, and even though this consideration evaporated when the war came they still stuck to it because they were nervous about being "controversial" and alienating American isolationists.

When MGM was filming Mrs. Miniver studio boss Louis B. Mayer kept nagging director William Wyler to soften the character of the German flier, once again giving Wyler the old excuse about upsetting the European market -- even though Wyler knew MGM's Berlin office had been closed for over two years and there was no "European market" at that moment. Not until after Pearl Harbor did Mayer tell Wyler the depiction was okay.

But none of this affected a postwar anti-Communist pic like Invasion, U.S.A.. Ever since the beginning of the House Un-American Activities Committees' hearings into alleged Communist influence in Hollywood in 1948, the studios had been "encouraged" to make anti-Red films, and most of them specifically mentioned Moscow, the Soviets, Korea and other topical (and real) Communist enemies. So there was no point in this film's silly resort to calling the invading Russians "the enemy". Besides, let's get real: would anybody refer to an invader as "the enemy" in routine conversation? Sure, in its specialized communications the military might often refer to "the enemy", but average people in everyday conversation? Ha! During WWII everyone said "the Japs" or "the Nips" and "the Nazis" or "the Krauts" -- not "the enemy"!

[–] churchr-1 8 years ago

This is "the thread of decades" I love it.

Here's a possibility. Maybe they avoided saying Russians or Soviets for the ads. Instead of being "yet another new movie about the Russians invading" yawn, it's "a movie about a mysterious enemy!"

Or maybe the producer already had a poster.

[–] hobnob53 8 years ago

Or maybe the producer already had a poster.

Sounds like the guy Ed Wood worked for!

[–] jjk50 8 years ago

If you look closely in some of the scenes "The Enemy" looks Asian, in other scenes Russian and in a few scenes the officer's look like they have Nazi uniforms on. The producers couldn't make up their minds.

[–] hobnob53 8 years ago

You're not accusing this movie of a lack of authenticity, are you?

