Clearly, this was a TCF prestige production. Impresario Sol Siegel produced, auteur William Wellman directed, popular leads Andrews and Crain starred, while Canadian locations were as accurate as possible. Based on a true story of Soviet espionage, the framing lends genuine authenticity. Not too much exciting happens until the last 20-minutes, when defector Gouzenko tries to get skeptical Canadian authorities to believe his story. That must have been hair-raising, his life on the line.
But make no mistake, the narrative is turned into propaganda, sometimes crude, sometimes slick. It's not a question of basic facts. Those I take to be true. Instead, it's a question of stagecraft, namely, how the facts are presented. In short, it's not the 'what' but the 'how'. Note how Soviet officials are presented by the movie makers. How they apparently hate full light— seemingly only to exist in noirish shadow; how they never smile, apparently having no inner feelings; how they only speak in a mechanical manner, apparently having no thoughts of their own; and how they apparently don't love their wives, Gouzenko's fidelity marking him as a potential defector. Indeed, this is Hollywood's attempt to turn on a dime, yesterday's ally becoming today's enemy. In short, TCF had to take up the Cold War too, of which this film was a key entry.
Speaking of spying on allies, we might ask Germany's current chancellor Angela Merkel how she likes having her phones bugged by our own NSA. Understandably, it created quite a diplomatic stir (Google 'merkel and spying'). My point is not to defend the Soviets specifically. Rather, it is to point out an important part of cinematic propaganda. Namely, that it's not sufficient to present the basic facts, as some folks believe; it's also how those facts are presented, and here the manner is clearly propagandistic. Soviet stereotypes are created that would endure. My larger point is to beware of any effort to de-humanize an enemy no matter how detestable they may seem. For such an effort can also be turned around on us.
But make no mistake, the narrative is turned into propaganda, sometimes crude, sometimes slick. It's not a question of basic facts. Those I take to be true. Instead, it's a question of stagecraft, namely, how the facts are presented. In short, it's not the 'what' but the 'how'. Note how Soviet officials are presented by the movie makers. How they apparently hate full light— seemingly only to exist in noirish shadow; how they never smile, apparently having no inner feelings; how they only speak in a mechanical manner, apparently having no thoughts of their own; and how they apparently don't love their wives, Gouzenko's fidelity marking him as a potential defector. Indeed, this is Hollywood's attempt to turn on a dime, yesterday's ally becoming today's enemy. In short, TCF had to take up the Cold War too, of which this film was a key entry.
Speaking of spying on allies, we might ask Germany's current chancellor Angela Merkel how she likes having her phones bugged by our own NSA. Understandably, it created quite a diplomatic stir (Google 'merkel and spying'). My point is not to defend the Soviets specifically. Rather, it is to point out an important part of cinematic propaganda. Namely, that it's not sufficient to present the basic facts, as some folks believe; it's also how those facts are presented, and here the manner is clearly propagandistic. Soviet stereotypes are created that would endure. My larger point is to beware of any effort to de-humanize an enemy no matter how detestable they may seem. For such an effort can also be turned around on us.