Lillian Hellman was a committed political animal. Many in her day and since have attacked her for being too committed, and for being too left of center - and she was. However the majority of her most vituperous critics were also committed political animals, but too far to the right. Whether or not this includes Mary McCarthy and her famous comment that nothing Hellman said was true (including prepositions) I cannot say. But Hellman and her lover Dashiell Hamnett were blacklisted by people following the likes of the Joseph McCarthys and Roy Cohens and Edgar Hoovers of our society. While I don't agree with a full-speed ahead left of center philosophy, I think this world has seen enough of a full-speed ahead right of center philosophy. In comparison to Hellman and Hamnett, how much damage did McCarthy, Cohen, and Hoover accomplish (i.e., how many lives did they destroy).
Hellman had looked at American isolationism in WATCH ON THE RHINE (1943) in the Washington, D.C. household of Lucille Watson (widow of a Supreme Court Justice). The then European war is brought straight into her safe household due to her two son-in-laws, Paul Lukas (anti-Nazi) and George Coulouris (collaborationist). Watson, in the end, awakes to the threat from the right in Europe that can reach us here. But the cost is that Lukas has to return to the charnal house in Europe to carry on the struggle (until we get involved ourselves).
Here, in THE SEARCHING WIND, Hellman looks at the various events from the end of World War I to Munich. Her "hero" is Robert Young, in possibly his most uncertain, fitful performance (not to knock his performance - he is trying to be a diplomat who is uncertain about what to do, so he is performing the part properly). Young, married to Ann Richards, is intelligent and questioning, but easily swayed to being placid. After all, what does he care about the situations in countries like Italy, Spain, or Czechoslovakia. None of this should appear to effect the U.S. We are across the Atlantic after all. His wife, who likes to swan with the elite of these countries (frequently right wing types) helps keep her wavering husband from stirring up bad feelings. Only that reporter (Sylvia Sidney) would try to stir up Young's more troubled feelings - but he is mentally and spiritually too weak to really confront the danger.
Interestingly enough Young's diplomatic career resembles a more notorious (now notorious) figure from our diplomatic corps of the period. This was Breckenridge Long, a descendant of a distinguished Kentucky political family, and a total anti-Semite. Long began as a diplomat in Italy, and was a total supporter of Mussolini's fascists. Subsequently he apparently fully supported Hitler's rise to power in Germany and Central Europe. He made certain that there was little help from the State Department for Jews to get into this country (outside from unfair quotas) in the 1930s. Young is not as vicious as Long was (he is simply ineffective and timid), but one wonders if Hellman based his character in part on Long.
My only point against the film is the business regarding Young and Richard's son, and the secret he tells them to devastate them at the end. His physical problems might still have occurred even if Young had acted in a more determined manner in warning the U.S. government about the rising threat of the right in Europe - after all, final government policy was still determined in Congress, and it was heavily isolationist until Pearl Harbor (then it became politically suicidal to be isolationist). This would suggest that we would still have gone to war, even if Young had spoken out. So Young's son might still have the physical problem no matter what. But Hellman was still commenting on the willing blindness of our diplomats, so this is a minor quibble at best - the film is still on target.
Hellman had looked at American isolationism in WATCH ON THE RHINE (1943) in the Washington, D.C. household of Lucille Watson (widow of a Supreme Court Justice). The then European war is brought straight into her safe household due to her two son-in-laws, Paul Lukas (anti-Nazi) and George Coulouris (collaborationist). Watson, in the end, awakes to the threat from the right in Europe that can reach us here. But the cost is that Lukas has to return to the charnal house in Europe to carry on the struggle (until we get involved ourselves).
Here, in THE SEARCHING WIND, Hellman looks at the various events from the end of World War I to Munich. Her "hero" is Robert Young, in possibly his most uncertain, fitful performance (not to knock his performance - he is trying to be a diplomat who is uncertain about what to do, so he is performing the part properly). Young, married to Ann Richards, is intelligent and questioning, but easily swayed to being placid. After all, what does he care about the situations in countries like Italy, Spain, or Czechoslovakia. None of this should appear to effect the U.S. We are across the Atlantic after all. His wife, who likes to swan with the elite of these countries (frequently right wing types) helps keep her wavering husband from stirring up bad feelings. Only that reporter (Sylvia Sidney) would try to stir up Young's more troubled feelings - but he is mentally and spiritually too weak to really confront the danger.
Interestingly enough Young's diplomatic career resembles a more notorious (now notorious) figure from our diplomatic corps of the period. This was Breckenridge Long, a descendant of a distinguished Kentucky political family, and a total anti-Semite. Long began as a diplomat in Italy, and was a total supporter of Mussolini's fascists. Subsequently he apparently fully supported Hitler's rise to power in Germany and Central Europe. He made certain that there was little help from the State Department for Jews to get into this country (outside from unfair quotas) in the 1930s. Young is not as vicious as Long was (he is simply ineffective and timid), but one wonders if Hellman based his character in part on Long.
My only point against the film is the business regarding Young and Richard's son, and the secret he tells them to devastate them at the end. His physical problems might still have occurred even if Young had acted in a more determined manner in warning the U.S. government about the rising threat of the right in Europe - after all, final government policy was still determined in Congress, and it was heavily isolationist until Pearl Harbor (then it became politically suicidal to be isolationist). This would suggest that we would still have gone to war, even if Young had spoken out. So Young's son might still have the physical problem no matter what. But Hellman was still commenting on the willing blindness of our diplomats, so this is a minor quibble at best - the film is still on target.