"Boomerang" is a movie made in 1947 by director Elia Kazan that offers an unusual perspective on the American criminal justice system. Instead of trying to prove that the defendant in a murder case is guilty, the prosecutor goes out of his way to prove to the court that the defendant is innocent. Highly unusual to say the least, and not something we come to expect from a criminal justice system that is based on an adversarial relationship between prosecutors and defense lawyers, and a system that heavily favors those defendants with the money, resources and political connections to afford the best lawyers while the poor receive only nominal representation that almost always results in a guilty verdict or, at best, a plea deal that satisfies the prosecutor. What's even more remarkable is that "Boomerang" is based on a true story which took place in 1924.
A priest is shot dead on a street at night in a Connecticut city. Although there are several witnesses to the shooting, none of them can provide positive identification. The killer gets away, and the police are clueless in finding him. Since the victim was well-known and very popular in the community, the failure of police to apprehend a suspect becomes a political issue and intense pressure is brought to bear on the mayor, police commissioner and police chief to resolve the case as quickly as possible. After a massive nationwide manhunt a homeless veteran who fit the description provided by witnesses and possessed a handgun matching the one used in the crime is apprehended. He is interrogated for two days by police until, deprived of sleep, he confesses.
The prosecuting State's Attorney initially believes he has an overwhelming case against the defendant, and everybody in the community including the police chief, mayor and other city officials, newspapers and residents alike assume a conviction will be quickly obtained. However, after examining the evidence more thoroughly, the prosecutor concludes the case against the defendant may not be as overwhelming as he first thought. The testimony from witnesses is inconsistent and contradictory, while ballistic tests on the gun were inconclusive. The defendant also insists that his confession was coerced, mainly because he was deprived of sleep for two days.
At a preliminary hearing the prosecutor lays out a prima facie case against the defendant before a judge. However, in a highly unusual presentation, the prosecutor subsequently assumes the role of defense attorney and lays out the flaws in the case before the judge who later dismisses the charges and the defendant is set free. The movie concludes with the prosecutor escorting the accused out of the courthouse as a free man, with a narrator explaining that though this is based on a true story fictitious names were used. However the narrator goes on to mention the real name of the prosecutor in the case on which this story was based, Homer Cummings, who several years later became Attorney General of the United States.
The name of the city in Connecticut is never mentioned, though it is Bridgeport and the movie was filmed in Stamford. Another difference is the movie version takes place after World War Two, and the defendant is a homeless World War Two veteran. The actual case took place in 1924 and the accused was a homeless World War One veteran named Harold Israel. The case gained nationwide attention, and in 1931 the National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement released a report that criticized police interrogation methods and specifically cited the coerced confession of Harold Israel as an example.
Homer Cummings was politically active in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party for many years prior to the Bridgeport murder. He ran for Congress three times but lost by narrow margins, and in 1919-1921 served as Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. However, partly as the result of his handling of the Harold Israel case (which was never solved), his political career was pretty much over after 1924.
Circumstances changed in 1932 with the election of Franklin Roosevelt and a Democratic takeover of Congress. All was forgiven (or perhaps forgotten) in the Harold Israel case, and because of his long-time service as a leader in the Democratic Party and his help in getting the nomination for Roosevelt, Homer Cummings was offered the post of Attorney General in the new administration. After six years in that post he became the second-longest serving Attorney General in US history.
As Attorney General Cummings was responsible for protecting Roosevelt's New Deal policies from legal challenges. He successfully enabled Roosevelt to use his executive authority to regulate banks and monetary policy. However, he could not prevent reactionary judges on the Supreme Court from overturning some of the most significant New Deal programs such as the National Industrial Recovery Act and Agricultural Adjustment Act. To overcome reactionary resistance to the New Deal, Cummings devised a plan which would enable Roosevelt to appoint six additional judges to the Supreme Court and would tilt the Court to upholding the progressive policies of his administration. The scheme backfired when many Congressional Democrats, as well as Republicans, opposed the measure for infringing on the independence of the Judicial branch of government.
Somewhat ironically the director of Boomerang, Elia Kazan, became embroiled in political controversy a few years after the movie when he testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee. Kazan admitted to his former membership in the Communist Party during the 1930s, but in addition to that he named names of other party members he worked with including those in movies and theater. He justified his actions on grounds that, though still sympathetic to socialist ideals, he wasn't going to jeopardize his own career for the sake of others. Hardly the stuff that his protagonist in Boomerang, Homer Cummings, was made of.
Friday, January 8, 2016
Thursday, December 10, 2015
Galileo, the Catholic Church, and the House Un-American Activities Committee
"The Life of Galileo" by the German dramatist Bertholt Brecht is an updated, contemporary version of the trials and tribulations suffered by the 17th century astronomer as he sought to disseminate a new theory about the Solar System and the movement of the various planets. As a result of his observations with the use of the recently invented telescope, Galileo embraces the heliocentric theory advanced by Nicolaus Copernicus which states that the Earth and other planets revolved around the Sun, rather than the long-established and widely accepted geocentric theory that the Sun and other planets revolved around the Earth. This provided a direct challenge to teachings of the Roman Catholic Church which were based on biblical passages consistent with a geocentric view of the Solar System. To complicate matters further Galileo published his conclusions in Italian, rather than Latin, so that his work became more available. Fearful that Galileo's widely published observations would undermine traditional Catholic teaching, the Vatican summons him to Rome where he is interrogated by the Inquisition. Galileo finally recants his teachings when he is threatened with torture, disappointing his students and supporters who are shocked at his surrender to the authorities. He then remained under house arrest for the rest of his life under the supervision of a priest.
Brecht was a practitioner of "epic theater" which suggested that a play should not cause the spectator to identify emotionally with the characters or action before them, but should instead provoke rational self-reflection and a critical view of the action on the stage. He wanted his audiences to adopt a critical perspective in order to recognize social injustice and exploitation and to be moved to go forth from the theatre and effect change in the world outside. To do this Brecht used various unconventional techniques to remind the audience that the play is a representation of reality and not reality itself. Stage crew were visible as were props, placards, graphics, etc. all designed to reinforce that the play was just for show to get people to think about reality and how to change that reality.
Fearing political persecution for his Marxist beliefs, Brecht fled Nazi Germany in 1933 and spent several years living in Denmark, Sweden and the Soviet Union. One of his reasons for writing the play in 1939 was to demonstrate the impact of intolerance against free speech and scientific expression which was taking place at the time in his homeland. He was also fearful of ways science would be applied to destruction rather than the betterment of man. After war broke out in Europe Brecht moved to the United States and between 1945 and 1947, in collaboration with noted actor Charles Laughton, rewrote the play in English. It was performed in Los Angeles in 1947, with Charles Laughton in the lead role.
Ironically, like the subject of his play, Brecht himself was called to account by civil authorities for his beliefs and political associations. With the advent of the Cold War and "Red Scare", he was blacklisted by movie studio bosses and interrogated by the House Un-American Activities Committee. Along with 41 other Hollywood writers, directors, actors and producers, he was subpoenaed to appear before the Committee in September 1947 shortly after "Galileo" was first performed. Although he was one of 19 witnesses who declared that they would refuse to appear, Brecht eventually decided to testify. He later explained that he had followed the advice of attorneys and had not wanted to delay a planned trip to Europe. On the 30th of October 1947 Brecht testified that he had never been a member of the Communist Party, but warned the Committee of the dangers imposing restrictions on free expression and art. Like the main character in his play "Life of Galileo" he also expressed apprehension about the ways science was being used to make war instead of improving living conditions.
Brecht believed that art should be used for the betterment of man. With regard to developments in science and technology he told the Committee, "We are living in a dangerous world. Our state of civilization is such that mankind already is capable of becoming enormously wealthy but, as a whole, is still poverty-ridden. Great wars have been suffered, greater ones are imminent, we are told. One of them might well wipe out mankind as a whole. We might be the last generation of the specimen man on this earth. The ideas about how to make use of the new capabilities of production have not been developed much since the days when the horse had to do what man could not do. Do you not think that, in such a predicament, every new idea should be examined carefully and freely? Art can present clear and even make nobler such ideas."
As with Galileo who disappointed his supporters when he "recanted" his teachings, Brecht's decision to appear before the Committee led to criticism, including accusations of betrayal. However, unlike Galileo, Brecht was not placed under house arrest and the very next day after his testimony he left the United States for Europe and never came back. Ten of his colleagues who refused to testify, known as the "Hollywood Ten", went to jail.
Brecht was a practitioner of "epic theater" which suggested that a play should not cause the spectator to identify emotionally with the characters or action before them, but should instead provoke rational self-reflection and a critical view of the action on the stage. He wanted his audiences to adopt a critical perspective in order to recognize social injustice and exploitation and to be moved to go forth from the theatre and effect change in the world outside. To do this Brecht used various unconventional techniques to remind the audience that the play is a representation of reality and not reality itself. Stage crew were visible as were props, placards, graphics, etc. all designed to reinforce that the play was just for show to get people to think about reality and how to change that reality.
Fearing political persecution for his Marxist beliefs, Brecht fled Nazi Germany in 1933 and spent several years living in Denmark, Sweden and the Soviet Union. One of his reasons for writing the play in 1939 was to demonstrate the impact of intolerance against free speech and scientific expression which was taking place at the time in his homeland. He was also fearful of ways science would be applied to destruction rather than the betterment of man. After war broke out in Europe Brecht moved to the United States and between 1945 and 1947, in collaboration with noted actor Charles Laughton, rewrote the play in English. It was performed in Los Angeles in 1947, with Charles Laughton in the lead role.
Ironically, like the subject of his play, Brecht himself was called to account by civil authorities for his beliefs and political associations. With the advent of the Cold War and "Red Scare", he was blacklisted by movie studio bosses and interrogated by the House Un-American Activities Committee. Along with 41 other Hollywood writers, directors, actors and producers, he was subpoenaed to appear before the Committee in September 1947 shortly after "Galileo" was first performed. Although he was one of 19 witnesses who declared that they would refuse to appear, Brecht eventually decided to testify. He later explained that he had followed the advice of attorneys and had not wanted to delay a planned trip to Europe. On the 30th of October 1947 Brecht testified that he had never been a member of the Communist Party, but warned the Committee of the dangers imposing restrictions on free expression and art. Like the main character in his play "Life of Galileo" he also expressed apprehension about the ways science was being used to make war instead of improving living conditions.
Brecht believed that art should be used for the betterment of man. With regard to developments in science and technology he told the Committee, "We are living in a dangerous world. Our state of civilization is such that mankind already is capable of becoming enormously wealthy but, as a whole, is still poverty-ridden. Great wars have been suffered, greater ones are imminent, we are told. One of them might well wipe out mankind as a whole. We might be the last generation of the specimen man on this earth. The ideas about how to make use of the new capabilities of production have not been developed much since the days when the horse had to do what man could not do. Do you not think that, in such a predicament, every new idea should be examined carefully and freely? Art can present clear and even make nobler such ideas."
As with Galileo who disappointed his supporters when he "recanted" his teachings, Brecht's decision to appear before the Committee led to criticism, including accusations of betrayal. However, unlike Galileo, Brecht was not placed under house arrest and the very next day after his testimony he left the United States for Europe and never came back. Ten of his colleagues who refused to testify, known as the "Hollywood Ten", went to jail.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)