|
Back
to The History of American Film: Primary Sources
HUAC
Hearings on Communist Infiltration of the Motion-Picture Industry,
1951-52
Testimony
of Larry Parks, Accompanied by His Counsel, Louis Mandel, 1951
MR.
TAVENNER. (HUAC Counsel) Mr. Parks, when and where were you born?
MR.
PARKS. I was born in Kansas on a farm. I moved when I was quite
small to Illinois. I attended the high school in Joliet, Ill.,
and I also attended and graduated from the University of Illinois,
where I majored in chemistry and minored in physics. I sometimes
wonder how I got in my present line of work....
MR.
TAVENNER. Now, what is your present occupation?
MR.
PARKS. Actor....
MR.
TAVENNER. You understand that we desire to learn the true extent,
past and present, of Communist infiltration into the theater field
in Hollywood, and the committee asks your cooperation in developing
such information. There has been considerable testimony taken
before this committee regarding a number of organizations in Hollywood,
such as the Actors' Laboratory; Actors' Laboratory Theater; Associated
Film Audiences-Hollywood Branch; Citizens' Committee for Motion-Picture
Strikers; Film Audiences for Democracy or Associated Film Audiences;
Hollywood Anti-Nazi League or Hollywood League Against Nazism;
Hollywood Independent Citizens' Committee of the Arts, Sciences,
and Professions; Hollywood League for Democratic Action; Hollywood
Motion-Picture Democratic Committee; Hollywood Peace Forum; Hollywood
Theater Alliance; Hollywood Writers' Mobilization; Motion Picture
Artists' Committee; People's Educational Center, Los Angeles;
Mooney Defense Committee- Hollywood Unit; Progressive Citizens
of America; Hollywood Committee of the Arts, Sciences, and Professions;
Council of the PCA; Southern California Chapter of the PCA; Workers
School of Los Angeles.
Have you been connected or affiliated in any way with any of those
organizations?
MR.
PARKS. I have....
MR.
TAVENNER. Will you tell the committee whether or not in your experience
in Hollywood and as a member of these organizations to which you
have testified there were to your knowledge Communists in these
various organizations which I have referred to, particularly those
that you were a member of?
MR.
PARKS. I think I can say "Yes" to that.
MR.
TAVENNER. Well, who were these Communists?
MR.
PARKS. There were people in the Actors' Lab, for instance--this,
in my opinion, was not a Communist organization in any sense of
the word. As in any organization, it has all colors of political
philosophy....
MR.
TAVENNER. Well, were there Communists attached to these other
organizations which you say you were a member of?
MR.
PARKS. This I'm not familiar with. I don't know. I don't know
who else was a member of them besides myself.
MR.
TAVENNER. Your answer is because you do not recall who were members
of these other organizations?
MR.
PARKS. I think that is the gist of my answer; yes.....
MR.
TAVENNER. Well, what was your opportunity to know and to observe
the fact that there were Communists in [the Actors' Laboratory]?
MR.
PARKS. May I answer this fully and in my own way?
MR.
TAVENNER. I would like for you to....
MR.
PARKS. I am not a communist. I would like to point out that in
my opinion there is a great difference between--and not a subtle
difference--between being a Communist, a member of the Communist
Party, say in 1941, 10 years ago, and being a Communist in 1951.
To my mind this is a great difference and not a subtle one....
As I say, I am not a Communist. I was a member of the Communist
Party when I was a much younger man, 10 years ago. I was a member
of the Communist Party....
Being a member of the Communist Party fulfilled certain needs
of a young man that was liberal in thought, idealistic, who was
for the underprivileged, the underdog. I felt that it fulfilled
these particular needs. I think that being a Communist in 1951
in this particular situation is an entirely different kettle of
fish when this is a great power that is trying to take over the
world. This is the difference....
MR.
TAVENNER. In other words, you didn't realize that the purpose
and object of the Communist Party was to take over segments of
the world in 1941, but you do realize that that is true in 1951?
Is that the point you are making?
MR.
PARKS. Well, I would like to say this: That this is in no way
an apology for anything that I have done, you see, because I feel
I have done nothing wrong ever. Question of judgment? This is
debatable. I feel that as far as I am concerned that in 1941,
as far as I knew it, the purposes as I knew them fulfilled...certain
idealism, certain being for the underdog, which I am today this
very minute....
I wasn't particularly interested in it after I did become a member.
I attended very few meetings, and I drifted away from it the same
way that...I drifted into it....To the best of my recollection,
I petered out about the latter part of 1944 or 1945....
REPRESENTATIVE
CHARLES E. POTTER (HUAC Committee Member). Who would call these
meetings together?....
MR.
PARKS. I would prefer not to mention names under these circumstances....
REPRESENTATIVE
JOHN S. WOOD (HUAC COMMITTEE chairman). Mr. Parks, in what way
do you feel it would be injurious, then, to them to divulge their
identities, when you expressed the opinion that at no time did
they do wrong?
MR.
PARKS. This brings up many questions on a personal basis, Mr.
Congressman, as an actor....One of the reasons is that as an actor
my activity is dependent a great deal on the public. To be called
before this committee at your request has a certain inference,
a certain innuendo that you are not loyal to this country. This
is not true. I am speaking for myself. This is not true. But the
inference and the innuendo is there as far as the public is concerned....
MR.
WOOD. Don't you feel the public is entitled to know about [communist
infiltration of the motion picture industry]?
MR.
PARKS. I certainly do, and I am opening myself wide open to any
question that you can ask me. I will answer as honestly as I know
how. And at this particular time, as I say, the industry is--it's
like taking a pot shot at a wounded animal, because the industry
is not in as good a shape today as it has been, economically I'm
speaking. It has been pretty tough on it. And, as I say, this
is a great industry, and I don't say this only because it has
been kind to me. It has a very important job to do to entertain
people, in certain respects to call attention to certain evils,
but mainly to entertain, and in this Ifeel that they have done
a great job. Always when our country has needed help, the industry
has been in the forefront of that help....
On the question of naming names, it is my honest opinion that
the few people that I could name, these names would not be of
service to the committee at all. I am sure that you know who they
are. These people I feel honestly are like myself, and I feel
I have done nothing wrong. Question of judgment? Yes, perhaps.
And I also feel that this is not--to be asked to name names like
this is not--in the way of American justice as we know it, that
we as Americans have all been brought up, that it is a bad thing
to force a man to do this. I have been brought up that way. I
am sure all of you have.
And it seems to me that this is not the American way of doing
things--to force a man who is under oath and who has opened himself
as wide as possible to the committee--and it hasn't been easy
to do this--to force a man to do this is not American justice....
My people have a long heritage in this country. They fought in
the Revolutionary War to make this country, to create this Government,
of which this committee is a part....
I don't think I would be here today if I weren't a star, because
you know as well as I, even better, that I know nothing that I
believe would be of great service to this country. I think my
career has been ruined because of this, and I would appreciate
not having to--don't present me with the choice of either being
in contempt of this committee and going to jail or forcing me
to really crawl through the mud to be an informer, for what purpose?
I don’t think this is a choice at all. I don't think this
is really sportsmanlike. I don't think this is American. I don't
think this is American justice. I think to do something like this
is more akin to what happened under Hitler, and what is happening
in Russia today.
I don't think this is American justice for an innocent mistake
in judgement, if it was that, with the intention behind it only
of making this country a better place in which to live. I think
it is not befitting for this committee to force me to make this
kind of choice....
Back
to Top
|
