Darkness at High Noon: The Carl Foreman Documents

There have been many films made about the HUAC and the blacklisting time in hollywood, but this stands head and heels above the rest. Simply put, it is Carl Foreman's own words read in his letters that express a wide range of emotion in a black time in American history. So much talent and lives shattered from patriotic paranoia. It's packed with interviews, film clips, anecdotes and media. And of course we see the parallels of the film HIGH NOON and what was going on at the time. A must see for fans of film.

Darkness at High Noon is an outstanding piece of detective work. It addresses a terrible injustice perpetrated against Carl Foreman by Stanley Kramer. Despite the noisy protests by parties interested in perpetuating the Kramer myth, the documentary proves - with painstaking precision - how Foreman's work and credit for High Noon was suppressed. A victim of the Hollywood Blacklist, Foreman did not receive his Oscar for co-writing Bridge on the River Kwai until after his death.

Once the drama inherent in screenwriter Carl Foreman's story moves from an intro to his career beginnings and what he put on the page into what he was obliged to maneuver personally and professionally in the shark-infested waters of McCarthyism, leading to his HUAC summons, his resilient defiance of pressures to capitulate, and then exile to London as the only alternative to prison, just for refusing to "name names," this documentary takes on a riveting power of an all-too-relevant tale of free speech, civil liberties, and coercive intrigue in the name of pseudo-patriotism and feels like fresh insight despite the many looks into the blacklist era in both docu and drama over recent decades. The freshness derives from the convergence of: first-person narration (voiceover of a long 1952 letter in which Foreman had recounted all the behind-the-scenes plot lines and subterfuges during the making of High Noon); intriguing editing that skillfully juxtaposes the off-screen tale with scenes from High Noon bearing the marks of his ongoing personal fight for honor amid the contemporaneous U.S. political intimidations and conformist messages (where betrayal and abandonment of friends and commitments became expedient) which had descended of him and found their way consciously into his writing of High Noon as allegory; and a range of interviews with key protagonists in Foreman's own story. (Neither Stanley Kramer nor John Wayne come out looking very good in their less-than-brave roles in this real-life story.) As much as I previously knew of this era and blacklisting's nightmare from a variety of sources, this didn't feel in the least 'redundant' but adds a rich, bittersweet chapter focusing on how one film and one screenwriter in particular were subjected to and epitomized an era of censorship, paranoia, and misguided patriotism ... Matters that echo again all too strongly in 2002. I do recommend this documentary as an ever-important lesson in our collective history. In addition, I dare say I'll never watch "High Noon" again without whole new layers of reverberation as to its making and its meaning.

Here is Karen Kramer's letter to the New York Post in response to Johnson's column:

How dare you allow columnist Richard Johnson to use Kevin Spacey as a springboard to defame filmmaker Stanley Kramer. Your reporter should take the time to check out the facts before making accusations and revising history. The article quotes Lionel Chetwynd as if he is an authority on High Noon, Kramer and Foreman. Chetwynd is nothing more than a lightweight who uses two dead men who cannot speak or defend themselves to promote his own political agenda. He makes propaganda films for the Conservative party to discredit well-known Democrats. In this case, Stanley Kramer.

These are the facts:

1. The Stanley Kramer Company was founded in the 1940's. Foreman was one of Kramer's six partners.

2. The Stanley Kramer Company signed a contract with Columbia Pictures in 1951 to make fifteen films. They were no longer an independent film company. Columbia financed and distributed their films. There paychecks came from Columbia Pictures, no longer from Stanley Kramer.

3. Harry Cohn was Columbia Pictures' president and a signatory to the 1947 Waldorf Agreement, which prohibited Hollywood studios from employing former communists. Foreman concealed his own years of party membership from Kramer and Company.

4. Legal documents signed by both Kramer and Foreman September 13, 1951, hiring film writer Foreman as High Noon's associate producer, a second in command in position to Stanley Kramer. (I have a copy of these documents.)

5. Foreman was subpoenaed to testify before HUAC. He swore to Stanley and partners that he was not and never had been a communist. When HUAC found Foreman's affiliations with the Communist Party, he was forced to resign from Columbia Pictures. His Associate Producer credit was not acknowledged because he was not there to complete his on-set duties during High Noon production.

6. What do all Blacklisted writers rightfully complain about? Not getting screenwriting credit. Stanley Kramer made sure that Carl Foreman's writing credit remained on-screen when High Noon was released in 1952.

7. Stanley Kramer did not take on-screen producer's credit because Stanley Kramer Company Presents went above the title for the first time with High Noon and stayed that way throughout the duration of his productions at Columbia.

8. Kramer defied the Blacklist in 1958 when he hired two Blacklisted writers, Nedrick Young and Harold Jacob Smith for their screenplay The Defiant Ones, which won the Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay that year. He paid more money for their screenplay than had been paid in many years. He brought them on to the lot which was unheard of in those McCarthy Era days. He put them as actors in the film.

9. He hired them again to write Inherit the Wind in 1960. The American Legion criticized Kramer for hiring known Communists.

These are the true facts, and if Stanley Kramer had been worried about what his association with Foreman might do to his own career, he certainly wouldn't have insisted on giving him screen credit on High Noon. Hope you will speak to Mr. Johnson. He doesn't do your publication justice.

Sincerely, Mrs. Stanley Kramer.