Evening star., 1943-05-24
mission to Moscow


The film, Mission to Moscow"
produced by Warner Brothers Pic
lures and now being shown through
out the country, has reused a con-
troversy the significance of which
far transcends the merits or dement's
OF the film itself. Basic political,
intellectual and moral issues are
involved. Such being the case, the
matter should be thoroughly
threshed out.
Mission to Moscow" is based on
the book with the same name written
by Joseph E. Davies about his ambas-
sadorship to the Soviet Union shortly
before the present war. The film was
produced with Mr.. Davies assistance
and includes his screen Endorsement.
1t has been approved by the Commu-
mist party in the United States and
by various organizations with Com
munlSt Affiliations. The National
Council of American Soviet Friend
ship, headed by Dr. Corliss Lamont,
has awarded the film a certificate of
apprecla ion, as has the kindred
group known as the Committee of
National Morale through it's chair
man, Arthur Upham Pope. Both Or
CARNATIONS defend the film and
strongly condemn it's critics and their
allegations
Those critics include leading fig
ures in our intellectual life and their
charges are serious One of the first
to protest against the film was the
Well-knoWn columnist, Dorothy
Thompson. Her objections were
amplifled in letter to the New York
Times written jointly by Professor
John Dewey and Suzanne La Fol-
lete, who stated that the film is the
hrst instance in our country of to-
talltarian propaganda for mass con-
sumption-a propaganda which fall
SITES history through distortion,
omission or pure invention of facts,
and whose effect can only be to con-
fuse the public in its thought and
It's loyaltles.' At the same time Ann
O'Hare Mccormick, columnist of the
New York Times, stressed not only
what she considered to be the dis
tortion of Soviet Russia to the
American public, but even more the
gross misrepresentation of the United
States, which might have misleading
effects upon the understanding be-
tween the two countries. Mrs. Nc
Cormick concluded: whether the
film sells Russia to the United States,
1t would certainly never sell the
United States to Russia. 1t would not
sell international cooperation to
anybody"
The case against the film Is best
set forth in a statement issued last
Thursday, signed by fifty-two promi-
nent American educators, historians,
writer's and trade union leaders. De-
nouncing Mission to Moscow" as
the first full-dress example of the
kind of propaganda movie hitherto
confined to totalitarian countries"
the statement continues: 1T is our
considered opinion that it falsifies
history and glorifies dictatorship.
Throughout the film there is a
deliberate confusion of Soviet and
American policy, so that critics of
the one are presented as necessarily
opposing the other. The Kremlin
and the White House are practically
brought under the same roof.
Congress is slanderously portrayed
and President Roosevelt is CORE
spondingly exalted as all-seeing and
all-Wise. These 'amalgam' tech
niques, this deifcation OF the
leader, are methods hitherto more
characteristic of totalitarian prop
aganda than of our own"
These are merely the high lights Of
controversy which obviously in
wolves not merely methods of screen
presentation, but also intellectual
standards and political ideals. 1t is
healthy sign of our national integ-
rlty and vitality that the discussion
should have arisen and that it is be-
ing conducted on so incisive plane.
Mission to Moscow" is clearly a new
phenomenon for the American
screen. The way it is adjudged may
establish an important precedent for
the evolution of what is undoubtedly
one of the major fields of public in
formation and molders of public
opinion. If the movie going public
fails to detect its bold propaganda
and resents it accordingly, 1t will be
bad sign indeed.