Plot-- A town librarian follows her conscience by refusing to remove a communist book from the library. This sets off a chain of events as the town struggles to find its own civic conscience.
Please allow me a moment before turning to the movie itself, which is notable for being the first to take on the purges of what's known as the McCarthy era. Importantly, there's a popular assumption that has arisen about that period and goes with the movie. I want to briefly question that assumption.
Put simply, the main misconception about the McCarthy era (early 1950's) is that it failed. In a sense the movie reflects that misconception in its ending, when the community resolves to rebuild the library. Nonetheless, the right-wing purges of New Deal liberals from positions of influence (Henry Wallace among the most notable) succeeded by leaving a permanent imprint on the nation's political direction. More importantly, the chill that went through liberal ranks led to considerable self-censorship, sinking any hopes that the US might expand New Deal policies into European-type social democracy. Being branded a "com-symp" could not only get a person dismissed from positions of influence, (teaching, engineering, administration, union leadership, etc.), but also risk established relationships, whether personal or professional. Popular history likes to think the period was something our liberal democracy got over quickly once McCarthy was censured. But the senator was only a spokesman of a broader powerplay, the effects of whose chill last to the present day. That's especially evident in the constricted nature of the Democratic Party, which never recovered from the loss of its progressive New Deal Wing. Nor, for that matter, did the vigor of the union movement. In sum, the fact that the Senator himself crashed and burned should not be confused with the success of the program as a whole, which was much greater than popular history likes to admit.
The movie itself is safely centrist, reducing the highly charged Cold War issues to the single one of free speech, a constitutional right that presumably principled liberals and conservatives could both support. Nor does the movie risk political partisanship by caricaturing the opposing factions. After all, the censorship faction has a point: we're in a war, they assert. It may be a cold war, but it's a war, no less. And censorship is accepted in wartime. To that, the movie libertarians reply that freedom of speech must be preserved to distinguish us from our totalitarian enemy, (presumably the unmentioned Soviets), otherwise we loose a key difference.
As to the movie itself, the acting is low-key, though Davis oh-so-perfectly enunciates her lines, while the boy's (Coughlin) melodramatic part appears badly over-done. I assume writer Tarradash was using the boy to symbolize what could happen to the younger generation should the anti-intellectual push get a toe-hold. The photography is rather flat b&w, presumably not to distract from the key message. Overall, it's not a particularly distinguished production apart from its place in film history. But, whatever else, the hopeful message should not be allowed to detract from the lasting ill-effects of that crucial period.
Please allow me a moment before turning to the movie itself, which is notable for being the first to take on the purges of what's known as the McCarthy era. Importantly, there's a popular assumption that has arisen about that period and goes with the movie. I want to briefly question that assumption.
Put simply, the main misconception about the McCarthy era (early 1950's) is that it failed. In a sense the movie reflects that misconception in its ending, when the community resolves to rebuild the library. Nonetheless, the right-wing purges of New Deal liberals from positions of influence (Henry Wallace among the most notable) succeeded by leaving a permanent imprint on the nation's political direction. More importantly, the chill that went through liberal ranks led to considerable self-censorship, sinking any hopes that the US might expand New Deal policies into European-type social democracy. Being branded a "com-symp" could not only get a person dismissed from positions of influence, (teaching, engineering, administration, union leadership, etc.), but also risk established relationships, whether personal or professional. Popular history likes to think the period was something our liberal democracy got over quickly once McCarthy was censured. But the senator was only a spokesman of a broader powerplay, the effects of whose chill last to the present day. That's especially evident in the constricted nature of the Democratic Party, which never recovered from the loss of its progressive New Deal Wing. Nor, for that matter, did the vigor of the union movement. In sum, the fact that the Senator himself crashed and burned should not be confused with the success of the program as a whole, which was much greater than popular history likes to admit.
The movie itself is safely centrist, reducing the highly charged Cold War issues to the single one of free speech, a constitutional right that presumably principled liberals and conservatives could both support. Nor does the movie risk political partisanship by caricaturing the opposing factions. After all, the censorship faction has a point: we're in a war, they assert. It may be a cold war, but it's a war, no less. And censorship is accepted in wartime. To that, the movie libertarians reply that freedom of speech must be preserved to distinguish us from our totalitarian enemy, (presumably the unmentioned Soviets), otherwise we loose a key difference.
As to the movie itself, the acting is low-key, though Davis oh-so-perfectly enunciates her lines, while the boy's (Coughlin) melodramatic part appears badly over-done. I assume writer Tarradash was using the boy to symbolize what could happen to the younger generation should the anti-intellectual push get a toe-hold. The photography is rather flat b&w, presumably not to distract from the key message. Overall, it's not a particularly distinguished production apart from its place in film history. But, whatever else, the hopeful message should not be allowed to detract from the lasting ill-effects of that crucial period.