Document 1547678

Table of Contents:
2……….Statement of Purpose and Submission Information
4……….“History Repeats Itself: The Struggle of France to Overcome the Occupation”
by Kayla Mason
40……….“The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Identity and Deformity in Wilde’s The
Picture of Dorian Gray and Stevenson’s Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” by Faith Rinklin
62……….“Human Trafficking Explained by Marxist Feminism Theory” by Ashtyne
McKenzie
74……….“When Hollywood Went to War” by Emily Teachout
Fog Cutter: A Journal of Thoughtful Inquiry, Knowledge, and Ideas
Fog Cutter provides a forum for undergraduate accomplishment in the Humanities and
Social Sciences. On an annual basis, up to five student papers will be published in the
journal’s electronic format. Published work can come from any WJU student as long as
the work’s content falls within a Humanities or Social Science discipline (Philosophy,
Literature, the Fine Arts, Modern Languages, Theology/Religious Studies, History,
Political Science, and International Studies) and the work is centered around qualitative
analysis. Three WJU faculty members serve as peer reviewers and determine which
papers are published. The journal’s purpose is to highlight the centrality of the
Humanities and Social Sciences to the university’s intellectual mission and experience,
as well as reward student achievement. To that end, authors receive a monetary award.
Submission Process:
Paper are to be 10-25 double-spaced pages of text (excluding citations), 12-inch font
(Times New Roman), 1-inch margins
Authors should include a 100-word abstract with their submission that addresses the
paper’s thesis, evidence base, and disciplinary significance.
Authors are to use the citation style germane to their paper’s discipline (e.g. MLA for
Literature, Chicago-style for History). Submissions with the incorrect citation format will
be rejected.
Papers must be carefully proofread and edited before submission.
Papers must come from coursework completed at WJU within the current academic
year.
Authors must secure a faculty sponsor from an appropriate discipline for their
submission.
Papers are to be submitted electronically to the journal’s e-mail address
([email protected]) by the end of the second week of April.
Publication and Awards:
Accepted papers will be published the fall semester following the submission date, but
authors will be notified of publication by the end of the spring semester in which they
submitted their work. Awards will be presented during the last week of the same spring
semester.
2
Awards: 1. Best submission ($300) 2. The authors of the other accepted papers will
each receive a $100 award
Each edition of Fog Cutter is published in electronic format on WJU’s academics’
homepage.
3
History Repeats Itself: The Struggle of France to Overcome the Occupation
Kayla Mason
Abstract: In the 1930s, internal issues within France created political divisions that
consumed society well into the postwar period. After the nation’s defeat in 1940 and the
establishment of the collaborative Vichy regime, De Gaulle’s proposal of a united
resistance movement prevented French citizens from acknowledging this internal
struggle. Incidents such as the Algerian War, the May 1968 events, and the Vél d’Hiv
memorial commemorations became a part of the continually evolving French narrative
that attempted to explain the political unrest in France. Finally, acknowledging the
nation’s role in Nazi atrocities allowed the country to begin the process of dissolving
these divides. While France took over half a century to find acceptance, this ideological
conflict illustrates the importance of looking to the future for hope rather than trusting the
myths of the past.
The state of France during the German Occupation of the early 1940s was
chaotic. Competing political ideologies divided the country in two as the fate of the
nation rested in the hands of a newly constructed government created by conservatives
within the state. François Mitterrand, who would later become the twenty-first president
of France under the Fifth Republic, personified the realities of these divisions within
French politics. His life provides a connection between the evolution of these competing
ideologies and the effects they had on postwar France. Mitterrand initially obtained a
position under the Vichy government in the General Commissariat for Returned War
Prisoners during the occupation and he later joined former POWs who contributed to
the mainland Resistance movement. 1 His final transition in the political sphere occurred
in 1981 when he was elected President. Mitterrand’s place in both Pétain’s government,
the collaborative regime that took control after the German Occupation, the Resistance,
led by the communists and eventually molded by de Gaulle, and the Republic, the
1
Éric Conan and Henry Rousso, Vichy an Ever-Present Past (Hanover: University
Press, 1998), 140.
4
foundation of French politics allegedly saved by de Gaulle, are all examples of this
dichotomy that existed during the war.
These political divisions, embodied by Mitterrand, consumed French society well
into the postwar period. The creators of Vichy, the regime that took control of the
southern portion of France after the defeat in 1940, as well as many French citizens,
initially saw collaboration with the Germans as beneficial to the state. The legacy that
this government left behind, however, further fractured the already unstable state. After
the war, de Gaulle’s image of a successful Resistance movement that had triumphed
over collaboration dominated France, leaving little time for the nation to process the
underlying reasons for this distinct separation. As France continued to progress in the
postwar era, conflicts, such as the Algerian War, relied on the divided memory of Vichy
and the Resistance as a way to explain these disagreements. This idea held true in
France until 1968 when a new generation reopened the wounds left by Vichy allowing
France to finally begin the process of grieving over their past. After this period,
memorials devoted to French participation in the Holocaust’s atrocities became a way of
dealing with the circumstances of the Second World War. While the legacy of defeat
ripped France apart after the German occupation and the establishment of the Vichy
regime, the idea of a united resistance movement, proposed by de Gaulle and adopted
by French citizens, was an attempt to help France move past the collaboration and
political divides that made enemies out of fellow Frenchmen during the war and focus
on reconstruction. In reality, this new narrative prevented the nation from acknowledging
the internal issues within their country, allowing the failures of the Second World War to
5
permeate national endeavors in the postwar era. Incidents such as the Algerian War,
the May 1968 events, and the Vél d’Hiv memorial commemorations became a part of
the continually evolving French narrative that attempted to explain the reasons behind
this political unrest.
During the interwar period, political disagreements divided the country on an
ideological level. Left-wing supporters surfaced as a response to the growth of fascist
regimes throughout Europe. This group feared what would happen if another country
succumbed to an ideology that strictly countered their own, so many of these political
supporters played a role in the mainland Resistance movement to challenge the Vichy
government and the German occupiers. 2 The right wing conservative advocates were a
response to the rise on the left. They wished to resurrect the past by turning to a more
traditional image of France, and this group would eventually give rise to the leaders of
the Vichy government. 3 Finally, de Gaulle symbolized the middle ground within this
three-pronged French war. He believed that France should continue fighting in order to
maintain the Republic. 4 Early in the war, and even after the conflict ended, the struggle
between these three ideologies to gain control over the country would impede the
nation’s ability to advance in the postwar era.
This political conflict began in the 1930s as the spread of fascism prompted panic
among left-wing supporters. As fascist governments assumed control in surrounding
2
Joel Colton, “Léon Blum and the French Socialists as a Government Party,” The
Journal of Politics 15, no. 4 (1953): 517-543, 527.
3
Robert O. Paxton, Vichy France: Old Guard and New Order 1940-1944, Morningside
ed. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), 140.
4
Ian Ousby, Occupation: The Ordeal of France, 1940-1944. (New York: St. Martin's
Press, 1998), 232-233.
6
countries like Italy and Germany, French communists feared what would happen if a
totalitarian government dominated France. Prior to 1934, the left consisted of two
distinct sections -- the communists and the socialists. Sharing a common apprehension
regarding fascism prompted these parties to set aside their differences and work
towards a common goal. 5 Hoping to gain the support of the entire nation, this expanding
group wanted to appeal to the middle class. 6 To accomplish this goal, the Popular Front
argued that the party intended to “…defend the republic against the threat of fascism,
internal and external, but also to combat the effects of the depression and to introduce
long overdue labor legislation.”7 At a time when economic reform was needed,
assurance that working conditions would improve attracted many followers.
The ever growing Popular Front appealed to many French citizens in the mid1930s. During this time, the entire global market suffered as a result of an economic
depression. As in any crisis, a promise to change the bleak situation in France appealed
to a wide margin of the population. 8 This united left wing movement was supported by
three prominent socialist and communist politicians, Maurice Thorez, Léon Blum, and
Édouard Daladier. 9 The promise of a better tomorrow emphasized by these leaders
allowed the Popular Front to assume control in the 1930s and, as the number of
communist sympathizers increased, conservatives feared that their new competition
would affect their place in French politics. This clash between the two opposing
5
Colton, “Léon Blum and the French Socialists as a Government Party,” 526-527.
Irwin M. Wall, “Teaching the French Popular Front,” The History Teacher 20, no. 3
(1987): 361-378, 376-375.
7
Colton, “Léon Blum and the French Socialists as a Government Party,” 526-527.
8
Michael Newman, “Leon Blum, French Socialism, and European Unity, 1940-50,” The
Historical Journal 24, no. 1 (1981): 193-314, 190 - 191
9
Wall, “Teaching the French Popular Front,” 373.
6
7
ideologies foreshadowed the conflict that would arise during the Second World War and
established the ways in which some French citizens would deem other Frenchmen as
their enemy.
Initially, the conservative wing developed as a response to the growing
Communist movement. These groups hoped to stabilize a chaotic state through the
establishment of an authoritative government. Leaders of the right wanted to correct the
underlying issues within France by promoting order, nationalism, and a centralized
state. 10 While conservative parties did not rapidly develop in the 1930s like their
communist counterparts, the defeatist attitude that swept through France after the
German invasion of May 1940 allowed the right to garner support from numerous
members of French society. The occupation of France provided Pierre Laval and
Philippe Pétain with a chance to offer France a way out of this seemingly hopeless
situation. While Pétain may have only acted as a figure head in Vichy, Laval and others
in the government saw their success as a means to obtain the fascist government that
they desired. 11 In order to instate Vichy as a legitimate successor to the Third Republic,
the leaders had to present the French with substantial reasons to collaborate.
Vichy relied on four claims to persuade the nation to support Pétain’s
government. First, most Europeans believed that Germany would eventually succeed in
their conquest of the continent. They thought that the final declaration of peace was a
few months away and political leaders hoped that by signing an armistice they would
10
11
Paxton, France: Old Guard and New Order 1940-1944, 140.
Ibid, 24-25.
8
obtain a favorable position in the new European order. 12 According to Premier Darlan in
his address to the French people on June 10, 1941, “If we do not get an honorable
peace, if France is cut up into many departments… and enters diminished and bruised
into the new Europe, she will not recover, and we and our children will live in the misery
and hatred that breed war.” 13 Many French politicians did not think France could win the
war, and by agreeing to an armistice they hoped to ensure a bright future for the
country.
Conservative Frenchmen also believed that the Third Republic had failed the
nation and they saw the creation of a new government as a way to fix these political
errors. According to Darlan, the defeat of France in June of 1940 was entirely the
government’s fault:
“From 1919 to 1939 our governments and our legislative assemblies stored up errors
and let themselves be led to defend interests which were not our own to the detriment of
our own. Domestically, they permitted sabotage of morale of the nation; they legalized
laziness and disorder. Abroad they carried out an incoherent policy; they made us the
protectors of small European powers without having been capable of forging the
indispensable arms for carrying out that mission.” 14
France had previously been a great power under Louis the XIV and under Napoleon;
however after the defeat of 1940, the French questioned their place in European
society. The Third Republic became synonymous with decay and many citizens saw
Vichy as a new start. Early in the war, Pétain had even proclaimed that the true priority
of the regime was to ensure that every French citizen had an equal amount of
12
Ibid, 9.
François Darlan, “Vice Premier Darlan’s Broadcast to the French People,” The New
York Times, May 23, 1941.
14
Ibid.
13
9
resources. 15 “The tragedy of Vichy,” however, was that while the government promised
successful reform to a country desperate for hope, in reality, it only implemented
violence and repressed an already weak society. 16 Even though the creation of this
regime would only tear France apart in the future, the possibility of a new government
that offered an answer to issues of the Republic, appealed to a broad section of the
population, just as the Popular Front had done in the 1930s. Furthermore, blaming the
Third Republic for France’s defeat allowed these men to assume a leadership position
and accuse one entity for the failures of the state rather than the population as a whole.
Another argument in favor of the armistice was that this action would end the
fighting in France and save a number of lives and cities. Twenty-six years previously an
entire generation was decimated as a result of the First World War and the tremendous
loss of young Frenchmen plus the increase in number of wounded citizens reminded
France of their sacrifice every day. For those fighting in the French Army, the initial
success of Germany’s invasion depleted what little confidence these soldiers had in
defending their country and, as a result, these men had lost nearly all motivation to
continue the battle.
17
The French also feared what would happen to the country if they
continued to resist. Eventually, the Germans would occupy all of France, enacting
reprisals on the civilian population for damages done to their army. 18 For this reason,
15
Fabrice Grenard, “Les Implication Politiques du Ravitaillement en France Sous
l'Occupation,” Vingtieme Siecle 94 (2007): 199-215, 200.
16
Henry Rousso, The Vichy Syndrome: History and Memory in France since 1944,
(Harvard University Press, 1994), 6.
17
Paxton, Vichy France, 8.
18
Ibid, 15.
10
the Vichy government intended to sign an armistice in order to preserve the lives of a
fragile generation.
Finally, the internal political struggle was the greatest motivation for the creation
of the Vichy government. At the time, dissenting parties pushed the country into an
ideological civil war. Knowing that a continued effort to fight could ultimately result in full
occupation, conservative political leaders feared what would become of France in the
absence of a French government. According to Robert Paxton, these right-wing
supporters believed that, “[to] deprive France of her natural defenders in a period of
disorder is to deliver her to the enemy, it is to kill the soul of France -- it is consequently
to make her revival impossible.”19 The enemies that the conservatives feared were the
French communists. In the years preceding and following the fall of the Third Republic,
right-wing politicians blamed other French political parties within the system for the
downfall of the nation. After the political success of the Popular Front in the 1930s, a
number of conservative Frenchmen feared that communism was a force that could tear
the country apart, so signing an armistice with the Germans allowed Vichy to suppress
these left-wing supporters. In this way, according to Henry Rousso, “the Vichy regime
was in many respects… a form of revenge against the Popular Front.” 20 Vichy’s creation
caused an even deeper divide within the country and encouraged French to fight
French, making the process of coming to terms with collaboration and the war even
more difficult.
19
20
Ibid, 16.
Rousso, The Vichy Syndrome: History and Memory in France since 1944, 6-7.
11
Shortly after the installment of Vichy, many Frenchmen lost hope in the ability of
this new regime to save the country. While Pétain’s government proposed a National
Revolution grounded in social change, the leaders actually “delivered poverty and
repression.”21A totalitarian state took over, limiting the freedoms of French citizens. An
example of this process can be seen in the creation of the Labor Charter. Initially
proposed by René Belin, the Minister of Labor under Pétain, in September 1940, the
charter was rejected because conservatives within Vichy believed that too much power
was given to the working class and labor unions. After revising this idea, Belin
presented a new charter which gave workers some freedoms to settle disputes while
still being regulated by the state. 22 The fact that the Vichy government continued to
increase its oppressive hold over France only supported the idea that this charter was
created to trick workers into supporting the regime and that, in reality, this method would
only benefit the leaders of the Vichy government. As time progressed under German
occupation, attempts, such as this one, designed to restructure France were forgotten
and the realities of being an occupied state surfaced. 23
Needing to demonstrate their willingness to collaborate to remain in power, Vichy
leaders enacted new laws to coincide with Nazi doctrine. For example, in August 1940,
the government ruled to ban all secret societies. This law specifically targeted
Freemasons, who were usually associated with Socialist parties. 24 This oppressive
21
Steven Zdatny, “Collaboration or Resistance? French Hairdressers and Vichy's Labor
Charter,” French Historical Studies 20, no. 4 (1997): 737-772, 738.
22
Ibid, 739.
23
Ibid, 771.
24
The New York Times, “France to Dissolve Freemasons' Order: Bans All Secret
Societies-- Yugoslav Lodge Disbands Author,” August 2, 1940.
12
decision made by Vichy was an attempt to weaken the Communist enemy within
France. These leaders also targeted the Jewish population in the state. After the initial
occupation in 1940, the laws enacted by the Third Republic that prohibited anti-Semitic
propaganda were revoked. In addition to this, the Vichy regime also passed two laws
which prevented Jewish citizens from holding positions in public service offices and
allowed the French police to place non-French Jews in internment camps. 25 These
actions by Vichy illustrated the government’s willingness to cooperate with the
occupying force and, when combined with their less than successful social reforms,
fueled left-wing retaliation.
At the start of the Occupation, German soldiers specifically persecuted
communist citizens. Within a week of the armistice between France and Germany,
German police arrested over one thousand left-wing supporters in Paris alone. This type
of treatment pushed the Communists to openly oppose Pétain and his government,
sparking the early Resistance movement. The left-wing’s initial attempt at resistance
had a shaky start. The Communist Party’s leader, Thorez, deserted for the Soviet Union
early in the war, leaving his supporters directionless. 26 This attitude changed in 1941
when the harsh reality of the Occupation became apparent throughout France. Initially,
French citizens believed German propaganda that painted the country as an “admirable
ally” to the Germans. This delusion quickly disappeared, however, as the occupiers
arrested and executed French citizens accused of sabotage. Highly publicized cases of
25
Caroline Alice Wiedmer, The Claims of Memory: Representations of the Holocaust in
Contemporary Germany and France, (Ithaca: Cornell University Press), 1999, 40.
26
Ousby, Occupation, 205.
13
these arrests riled Frenchmen, compelling them to fight back. 27 While resistors in
France had been present from the beginning of the war, the growing authoritative
presence of the Germans as well as the Vichy government prompted a growth in this
movement for communist supporters.
The first section of Communist Resistance represented a small minority of the
population and they often shared similar political interests. 28 These resistors relied
heavily on the distribution of pamphlets and journals in order to spread their messages.
They believed that the most effective way to fight the occupiers and Vichy was by
countering the enemy’s propaganda. The problem with this first wave of resistors,
however, stemmed from their lack of experience in how to effectively resist an
occupying force and, as a result, the early Resistance suffered many casualties. One
outsider even described the disorganization of these units as “a complete mess.” 29
While the early Resistance depended on the spread of information, the increase in
violence from the restrictive Vichy government elicited harsher acts of defiance from the
communists, generating attacks against the French by the French.
The second phase of French resistance developed in 1941 as a response to
Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union. French Communists attempted to aid their
fellow comrades on the Eastern Front by eliminating their fascist enemy in the
west. This issue was further intensified in August when a young resistor, Pierre
Georges, also known as Fabien, shot a German soldier at the Métro station in
Montmartre. His act of resistance came as a response to the arrest and execution of
27
Ibid, 206-208.
Ibid, 213.
29
Ibid, 214-217.
28
14
communists Henri Gautherot and Szmul Tyzelman during a demonstration in Paris. 30
Urging other resistors to “kill Germans,” this example set by Fabien prompted other
Communists to commit acts of violence against both the German enemy and the French
who chose to collaborate with the occupiers. This continued so that by the end of 1941,
sixty-eight attacks against the occupying forces had occurred. 31
The increase in partisan conflict also meant an increase in reprisals from the
Germans. As directed by Otto von Stülpnagel, the German military commander of
France, resistors who fought against the Germans would be shot. Initially, German
propaganda labeled those who opposed the Occupation as “‘cowardly criminals in the
pay of Moscow and Britain’ or supporters of the ‘Jewish-Marxist plutocratic alliance,’”
focusing on the left-wing supporters of the Resistance. As the war progressed, however,
the spread of propaganda transformed into a cycle of bloodshed. For every attack, there
was a counter attack which would in turn elicit another attack from the resistors. As this
violence escalated, the Resistance movement’s desire to fight the Germans and Vichy
increased. Eventually, the Germans ignored “the loose rules which Stülpnagel had
established” and extended the reprisals to a broader section of society. 32 These
assaults were made even more disturbing when supported by the collaborative
government. For the French resistors fighting for the liberation of their country, Vichy’s
willingness to comply with the Reich and support the execution of fellow Frenchmen
who opposed the Germans and Pétain’s regime created an even deeper divide within
30
Ibid, 224.
Ibid, 223-225.
32
Ibid, 226-227.
31
15
the country. 33 The more French leaders in Vichy agreed to these attacks, or even
helped to execute these orders, the more the French resistors felt abandoned by their
fellow countrymen.
While the Communist Resistance remained a relatively unorganized movement
perpetuated by individual groups, de Gaulle desired to unite the entire force in order to
reclaim France for the Republic. At the start of the war, de Gaulle participated in
government affairs within the last days of the Third Republic without achieving much
recognition. Having little influence in France, de Gaulle decided to leave the country for
London on 17 June 1940, hoping to foster continued resistance by French soldiers. 34 In
his Appel du 18 juin, de Gaulle advised the Frenchmen to continue fighting so that one
day, the nation would be victorious. He saw that the conflict encompassed more than
just the Battle of France and de Gaulle held on to the hope that the British and
American Armies would intervene. For this reason he proclaimed “No matter what
happens, the flame of French resistance must not be extinguished and will not be
extinguished.” 35 His proposal added a third side to the ideological battle that already
dominated France and de Gaulle eventually challenged both Vichy and the communists.
De Gaulle’s initial call to resist attracted few supporters. A majority of the French
soldiers who fled to Britain chose to work under the British Army rather than pledge their
support to de Gaulle’s Free French Forces and, to make matters worse, the political
leaders in Britain would not aid de Gaulle in his mission. Churchill did deem de Gaulle
33
Ibid, 230-231.
Ibid, 232-233.
35
“Quoi qu'il arrive, la flamme de la résistance française ne doit pas s'éteindre et ne
s'éteindra pas.” Charles de Gaulle. “Appel du 18 Juin 1940 du Général de Gaulle,” Charles-deGaulle.org.
34
16
the “‘leader of all the Free French, wherever they may be” as well as providing him the
opportunity to broadcast his message over BBC radio, but these permissions did little to
strengthen his cause. First, Churchill’s declaration regarding de Gaulle had no standing
in the totality of the war and second, few people in France actually heard the speeches
de Gaulle made in London. 36 His persistence, however, eventually allowed him to
assume the role as the figurehead of the entire French Resistance movement.
In order to achieve this recognition, de Gaulle needed to balance his ties to both
France and Great Britain as well as establish authority within the state. De Gaulle’s
devotion to France was questioned because Britain, in a sense, could be seen as the
state’s enemy. According to Ian Ousby, “To de Gaulle, France was not just a European
country and Britain was not just her cross-Channel neighbour. France was a global
empire and Britain was her global rival.” 37 In order to prove his loyalty to France, de
Gaulle had to position himself in a way to show that he was merely using the resources
of Britain to aid in his mission and by no means the country’s puppet. 38 He also needed
to demonstrate his power over the Resistance to legitimize his cause. Since Vichy
proposed that staying in France confirmed a person’s loyalty to the country where
deserting was seen as an act of dishonor, de Gaulle’s call to fight for liberation was
weakened. To combat this discrepancy, he focused on France’s empire as a way to
regain control over the nation.
Seeing France’s imperial colonies as a means to secure wealth in the future, he
believed defending these territories would give him an advantage over the Vichy
36
Ousby, Occupation, 233.
Ibid, 235.
38
Ibid, 234-235.
37
17
government. The act of ensuring that France kept the empire also meant that de Gaulle
needed to fight off other imperialistic nations such as Great Britain and America. This
was the reason behind de Gaulle’s strategic decision to center his headquarters in
Algiers rather than London. 39 Centralizing the movement in this location gave de Gaulle
authority within the empire and allowed him to adequately protect North Africa. In the
postwar era, de Gaulle’s decision to magnify the importance of foreign territories to
France complicated the issue of Algeria’s relation to the nation.
De Gaulle also needed to secure support on the mainland. After obtaining a
favorable position within the empire, he focused his efforts on organizing the communist
groups who had resisted the Occupation since the beginning. In order to accomplish
this, he entrusted Jean Moulin, a prominent Resistance leader, to bring together
individual cells of this movement and to create a unified front. After working for de
Gaulle, Moulin died in 1943 following the betrayal of a fellow resistor in Lyon. As a result
of his effort in the Resistance, France remembers Moulin as a patriotic hero of the
war. 40 This attempt by both de Gaulle and Moulin to secure the mainland, however,
proved to be worthwhile when the creation of the Forces Française de l’Intérieur unified
the Resistance abroad and on the mainland. 41 After establishing his role as leader of an
organized movement, de Gaulle was able to validate his position within French politics.
In the end, de Gaulle’s attempt to lead the Resistance was more successful than
the communists’ method. While the left-wing believed quick acts of sabotage would
provide an obstacle to the Germans, de Gaulle’s military background allowed him to
39
Ibid, 235.
Ibid, 210.
41
Ibid, 240.
40
18
organize individual groups and essentially create an army. Under his orders, these
resistors gathered intelligence and trained until an opportunity opened that would allow
the French Resistance to save the nation. This perfect moment would arrive in 1944 as
the Allies planned to invade France on D-Day. 42 As the war came to an end, de Gaulle
managed to become everything Pétain desired to be; “[he] had become France.” 43 His
affinity for politics combined with his military training provided him with the tools
necessary to unite a force in France and emerge as the postwar leader of the nation.
This power, seized by de Gaulle, allowed him to propose the idea of France as the true
victor of the war by encompassing the entire nation under the façade of the Resistance,
and placing crimes of collaboration on his enemies. While de Gaulle intended to unite all
of France under this idea, he instead exacerbated the ideological divide that existed
before the war by encouraging the French to fight against one another.
De Gaulle set out to create this narrative immediately after the liberation of Paris.
In his speech made on 25 August 1944 at the Hotel de Ville, he condemned the
Frenchmen who had collaborated with the German occupiers.
“We are back home in Paris which is on its feet to liberate itself and which has been able to
achieve it singlehanded… The nation well knows that the sons and daughters of France -- all the
sons and daughters except for a few unhappy traitors who gave themselves to the enemy and
who are tasting or will taste the rigours of the law -- yes! All the sons and daughters of France
must march towards France’s goal, fraternally and hand in hand. Vive la France!” 44
In this address, he proposed that France had liberated herself -- not with the help of the
Allies and not even by means of the Resistance movement, but France itself became
42
Ibid, 243-244.
Ibid, 238.
44
Charles de Gaulle, The War Memoirs of Charles de Gaulle, Unity: 1942-1944
Documents, (New York: Simon and Schuster), 1959, 409-410
43
19
the savior of the people. 45 Under de Gaulle’s myth, France would become a nation of
resistors, while Vichy would represent only a small portion of those who had
collaborated. In reality, his proposal was an inversion of the truth. His memory over
emphasized a resistance movement that consisted of a rather small section of France
and offered the leaders of Vichy as sacrifice for the majority of the nation who had
initially supported Pétain. Trying to cover up the acts of collaboration that occurred
during the war prevented France from fixing the underlying political unrest, which
resulted in more confusion in the successive decades.
Further complicating this political struggle, de Gaulle blamed the leaders of the
Vichy government for the difficulties of the war. He accurately foresaw the challenge of
unifying a state that dealt with political turmoil. This challenge only escalated when the
war prompted the French to fight against each other. De Gaulle stated in March 1945
that “…the mist is only beginning to lift and that we are only just starting to realize the
true state in which the terrible tides of war have left us and the real extent of the efforts
of reconstruction and renewal which face the French nation for long years to come.”46
De Gaulle hoped that presenting the leaders of Vichy as the ones responsible for
collaboration within the state would free the remaining population to be seen as a nation
of victorious resistors. In order to successfully condemn these leaders, he needed to
publicly accuse those he deemed responsible for the most heinous crimes of the war.
To do this, de Gaulle relied on the postwar trials that would accredit these actions to
Vichy.
45
46
Rousso, Vichy Syndrome, 16.
De Gaulle, War Memoirs of Charles de Gaulle, Unity, 177.
20
The idea for these legal proceedings formed during the Occupation. The plan for
the treatment of Vichy leaders was outlined by de Gaulle in a statement from the
Committee of National Liberation in Algiers on 23 December 1943. This announcement
stated how the collaborators would be treated after the war. In the document, de Gaulle
argued that Vichy was not a valid government and that France was still at war with
Germany. Since the leaders of Vichy had acted on their own freewill to collaborate with
the occupiers, they had knowingly chosen to betray France. He stressed that these men
who had assisted the Germans would be treated justly and that they would go through
an official legal process. Once this had been accomplished, those believed to have
actively collaborated would be arrested. 47 This communiqué set the stage for how
collaborators would be treated after the war, proving that the Committee would uphold
the notion that any assistance to the Germans would be seen as a crime against the
French state.
After the liberation, the practices initially designed by de Gaulle were
implemented. Trials were held that allowed the High Court to make a decision regarding
those deemed active in collaboration. Out of these 108 cases tried between the years of
1945 to 1949, sixty-three resulted in convictions, three in acquittals, and forty in
decisions not to pursue the case. Under special circumstances, two cases were
convicted of collaboration, but later dismissed because of the involvement of the
condemned in the Resistance. Those found guilty of collaboration lost their civil rights
47
Ibid, 244.
21
as well as their positions within the government. 48 Overall, these administrative purges
allowed de Gaulle to succeed in spreading his postwar image of France. Placing the
blame of France’s failure during the Occupation on this select group of leaders provided
de Gaulle with the chance to present the nation, as a whole, victorious and push the
real internal struggles that prompted this divide to the side. While the President’s
actions did suffice at the time, ignoring the underlying reasons for France’s failure
during the Second World War would lead to more turmoil in later years as France
attempted to navigate the postwar political world with unresolved conflict.
The effects of de Gaulle’s proposed myth can be seen throughout the Algerian
War. As France moved into the 1950s, the question of the country’s empire became a
controversial topic. After the war, de Gaulle believed that France could maintain its
reputation as a powerful country by becoming involved in global affairs once again. 49 In
a speech made by the President of the Republic to the Consultative Assembly on 2
March 1945, he stated that economic reconstruction was the only way to stand out in a
broken Europe and in order to achieve this; the nation would need to utilize the
resources of the Empire. He claimed that, “We must take France as she is with the
known resources in the Metropolitan country and the Empire, we must take her with the
natural capabilities of her people, we must take her in the middle of a world marching
towards progress…” 50 While a plan of imperialistic expansion initially appealed to de
48
Jon Elster, “Redemption for Wrongdoing: The Fate of Collaborators after 1945.” The
Journal of Conflict Resolution 50, no. 3 (2006): 324-338, 326-329.
49
Tony Judt, Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945. (New York: Penguin Press),
2005, 283.
50
Charles de Gaulle, The War Memoirs of Charles de Gaulle, Salvation: 1944-1946
Documents, (New York: Simon and Schuster), 1960, 181.
22
Gaulle, relations with the United States would later change his viewpoint. His wavering
attitude regarding these territories reinforced the ideological struggle in France and
countered the argument he proposed regarding the empire during the war. As the
conflicts that would soon occur in Vietnam and in Algeria developed, the country would
once again test the strength of French rule as well as bring up memories of the “Dark
Years” of the Occupation.
In May 1954, Viet Minh forces in Vietnam defeated the French Army, marking the
end of French involvement in Indochina. While this defeat represented a blow to France,
the conflict that would soon arise in Algeria surfaced as a more pressing issue.
Indochina was a far away country that had little connection to France other than its
colonial troops. Algeria, on the other hand, was only a short distance away from the
mainland and many politicians considered this territory inherently French. 51 Believing
Algeria to be an extension of the nation led to a division amongst political leaders and
even the general public. This conflict grew more complex as incidents within Algeria
created tension between the native population and French citizens living within that
territory. 52 Once again, France was involved in a multi-front ideological struggle which
mirrored events from the Second World War.
The initial conflict in Algeria occurred as a response to two postwar incidents.
First, the end of the Second World War decimated France’s reputation around the
world. As a result of this defeat, the once powerful nation lost legitimacy within its
African colonies. Those living in France, as well as citizens in the empire, tried to come
51
William B. Cohen, “The Algerian War, the French State and Official Memory,”
Réflexions Historiques 28, no. 2 (2002): 219-239, 220.
52
Rousso, Vichy Syndrome, 60.
23
to terms with the result of the war. This meant that the nation needed to agree on who
should be the leader of the government. After de Gaulle was re-elected as president,
the pied-noirs, or French and European citizens living in Algeria, rejected this new
political arrangement. Throughout the war, Algeria supported Pétain and, after the
armistice, these Frenchmen had to put their trust in de Gaulle. Those living in Algeria
associated this new leader and his politics with the American government who aided
France during the war. They feared that this growing global power would eventually
overshadow the French presence in North Africa which would place Algeria under US
control. De Gaulle reinforced this idea in 1944 when he stated that he wanted to “‘lead
each of the colonial peoples to a development that will permit them to administer
themselves, and, later, to govern themselves.’” 53 Proposing that the native Algerians
should govern their own country only angered the pied-noirs because they believed that
Algeria belonged to France, an idea that de Gaulle had previously supported.
The second event that preceded the struggle in Algeria came as a response to
the surge in nationalism after the war. Around the world, colonies fought for
independence against their rulers. The situation was the same in Algeria. Algerian
nationalists feared that colonial rule would resume and that the French government
would ignore reforms that their country needed. 54 To avoid the reimplementation of strict
French laws, rebellions erupted across Algeria. The first revolt occurred in 1945 in Sétif
which sparked a rise in nationalism amongst Algerian natives. 55 Over the next few years
53
Alistair Horne, A Savage War of Peace: Algeria, 1954-1962, (Harmondsworth, Eng.:
Penguin Books), 1979, 42-43.
54
Ibid, 43.
55
Ibid, 43.
24
the conflict would continue to grow and the creation of the FLN, the Algerian nationalist
group, initiated the organization of those who desired independence. The culmination of
this struggle transpired at the end of October in 1945 when nationalists implemented an
organized revolt. 56 This rebellion prompted harsh retaliation from the French, eventually
escalating into war and the overall push for independence became even more
complicated as mainland French politicians wrestled over the future of this country. 57
The tension within the state had increased to the point where six French
governments fell and de Gaulle, who had left the world of politics, was reinstated as
president to solve the issue. 58 For political leaders in France, as well as the general
public, this debate centered on the idea of who was considered truly French or
Algerian. 59 The dissenting opinions that split France during the Algerian War can be
divided into the same political groups that had been at odds since the 1930s. First, the
left believed that Algeria was “a classic case of colonial oppression;” however the
party’s distrust of Islam, the dominant religion in Algeria, left them to see the rebellions
as a Fascist led movement. As a result, both the mainland party as well as the Algerian
communists remained indifferent to the conflict. 60 Second, the Gaullists eventually
supported the Nationalists fighting for independence. Seeing the brutality of the war and
ultimately the death of 600,000 to 1.5 million Algerians, de Gaulle proposed an option
56
Ibid, 87-88.
Ibid, 96.
58
Cohen, “The Algerian War,” 221.
59
Lizabeth Zack, “Who Fought the Algerian War? Political Identity and Conflict in
French-Ruled Algeria,” International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society 16, no. 1 (2002):
55-97, 57.
60
Irwin M. Wall, “The French Communists and the Algerian War,” Colonial Conflicts to
Postcolonial Memories 12, no. 3 (2002): 521-543, 523-524.
57
25
that would allow the country to gain independence and potentially push the entire war
into oblivion. Finally, contrasting both viewpoints, the conservatives, represented by the
majority of French politicians, including François Mitterrand, believed that Algeria was a
part of France and to give up the land would be a betrayal to the nation. 61 Similar
themes from the Occupation were evident in Algeria, so the imperialistic conflict
triggered memories from the Second World War for many French citizens. 62 As these
divides threatened to rip France apart, leaders looked to the past for answers regarding
their future. Since the true issues that separated France during the 1940s were never
resolved, the Algerian War became wrapped within the context of Resistance and
Collaboration.
One example of this can be seen on 6 December 1960, when Pétain supporters
in Algiers pledged to stop at nothing to defend what they deemed to be “French land.”
They claimed that anyone against the idea of France in Algeria would eventually be
brought to trial for treason and that they would honor the Marshal who saved France.
When reviewing this incident in terms of Vichy and the Occupation, the logic is
reversed. According to Henry Rousso, “…The traitor de Gaulle is to be tried before the
Haute Cour for selling out an empire saved in 1940 by Pétain and the Armistice, making
it possible to mount a military resistance (the only legitimate resistance) in Africa.” 63
Similar connections were made where the FLN embodied the “heirs of the Resistance”
and the French Army took on the role of the Nazis for those that opposed the war. 64
61
Cohen, “The Algerian War,” 229.
Rousso, Vichy Syndrome, 60.
63
Ibid, 79.
64
Cohen, “The Algerian War,” 230.
62
26
These ties to the Germans during the Second World War increased as the atrocities
committed by the army against those fighting for independence in Algeria were made
known. One man during this conflict called for the arrest of 11,000 Algerians who were
transported to camps where they would be beaten. 65 Similar to the Occupation, the
political disagreements encouraged the French to find a foe in fellow citizens.
The idea of identifying other Frenchmen as an enemy could also be seen in the
way political groups defined their movements compared to the ideas of their
adversaries. Terms from the conflict in 1940, such as collaborator or resistor, were used
to cripple an opposing viewpoint or to link a political stance to a similar ideology. These
comparisons took on a deeper meaning when applied to Algeria because their use
illustrated the country’s preoccupation with the unresolved conflict. According to
Rousso, “One consequence was that people were reminded of the fact that the choice
between resistance and collaboration was insufficient to capture the true complexities of
the divisions that existed in France during the occupation.”66 Unsure of whether this
unrest was grounded in the past or the present, French citizens were once again
prevented from examining the political divides that had existed even in the prewar
period.
The political struggle that had followed France through two wars culminated in
May 1968 when the right clashed with the left yet again. This time, the ideological battle
centered on the need for educational reform in France and the conflict would eventually
grow into a movement that also questioned the oppressive nature of the Fifth Republic.
65
66
Ibid, 231.
Rousso, Vichy Syndrome, 75.
27
In the early days of May 1968, students, who embodied the left-wing of French politics,
participated in demonstrations organized by Communist leaders. Unsatisfied with the
state of higher education in France, protestors demanded reform that would allow them
to voice their opinions in the organization of French universities. Following the Second
World War, enrollment in these institutions tripled, which prevented officials from
adapting to social changes at the time. Students accused professors of unfair
examination practices that could ultimately end their scholastic careers, and of the use
of outdated teaching methods. As the student protests grew, riots consumed Paris,
leaving hundreds of students imprisoned or injured. 67 The harsh retaliation of French
police prompted the support of Communist labor unions that ultimately led to a strike of
over 100,000 workers throughout the country. 68 Once again, this fight between both the
left and right-wings of French politics placed fellow citizens against one another in what
could have ended in a civil war.
Similar to the situation in Algeria, these students saw a common element
between the political unrest they faced in 1968 when compared with the ideological
conflict that had consumed France during the Occupation. As a result of this connection,
students alluded to the “Dark Years” in order to insult other Frenchmen that they
deemed their enemy. One such incident occurred in Toulouse on May 31. In response
to the protests in Paris, 20,000 Gaullist supporters marched to the World War I
67
The New York Times, “Students Backed by French Unions: 3 Biggest Federations Call
24-Hour Strike Tomorrow -- Paris Riot Toll Heavy French Strike Called to Back Students,” May
12, 1968, 2.
68
The New York Times, “French Workers Take Over Plants As Unrest Widens: Dozens
of Factories Being Held by the Strikers - Red Flags Are Raised Student Actions Abate Some Air
Flights Canceled After Orly Employees Call a 48-Hour Stoppage French Workers Take Over
Plants,” May 18, 1968, 1.
28
monument to lay down a wreath in a sign of respect. These demonstrators waved the
Tricolour and shouted “‘France is with us!’” Reacting to this parade, anti-Gaullist
students blocked the road and claimed “‘Fascists shall not pass!’” 69 Similar episodes
occurred throughout France as students used slogans such as, “CRS [riot control
forces] equals SS” and “We are all German Jews” to challenge the Gaullist
government. 70 While the role of the Occupation took on a different meaning during May
1968, the cries of oppression prompted a new generation to question their history as
well as the origin of this political discord.
The reforms that would come out of May 1968 changed the way France viewed
the past. These student protestors represented a new generation in France that battled
the old. De Gaulle and his supporters were the “heirs” to the Resistance and, in order to
properly fight back, the youth in France needed to destroy this image that the President
created. 71 The 1968 political movement inspired a new legacy of the Occupation and
prompted many citizens to question the details of the Second World War. As a result of
this fascination with the past, the truth behind de Gaulle’s image of France during the
war was finally questioned and Frenchmen tried to find a way to atone for the atrocities
committed by Vichy.
The breakthrough that occurred in 1968 allowed France to re-examine the past.
Until this moment in history, discussion of Vichy’s involvement in the persecution of the
Jewish population in France was never questioned. As previously stated, de Gaulle
69
The New York Times, “A Clash Follows Toulouse Rally: Gaullist and Anti-Gaullist
Students Stage Fight,” June 1, 1968.
70
Rousso, Vichy Syndrome, 99.
71
Ibid, 99.
29
carefully crafted a narrative of France’s involvement during the conflict to avoid the
extent to which French citizens had collaborated with the Germans. This included
France’s willingness to participate in the implementation of the Final Solution. 72 As a
result of 1968, a new story regarding France’s role in the Holocaust emerged,
suggesting that the French had finally found a way to accept the division and conflict
which plagued France since the early 1930s.
The first step in acknowledging these horrors can be seen in the official memory
of the Vél d’Hiv round-ups. On 27 March 27 1942, following the passing of legislation
that allowed the state to imprison Jewish citizens, French police arrested 1,112 Jews
under German order. This number did not satisfy German officials, however, since
reports showed that there were nearly 28,000 Jewish citizens in Paris. To fulfill this
number, French police ordered that all Jewish citizens should report to the city hall, but
only 1,800 followed this demand. As a result, French leaders discussed how to meet the
quota set by the occupiers. In order to avoid the deportation of French Jews, René
Bousquet, Secretary of State under Vichy, requested that only stateless Jews be
rounded up. On July 4, the final plans were made to initiate the round-ups that would
include the deportation of Jewish women between the ages of fifteen and fifty-five and
males between the ages of fifteen and sixty. Knowing that the number would probably
not be met without additional round-ups, Laval proposed that children between the ages
of two and fifteen should be deported as well. He argued that by doing this, the state
72
Wiedmer, The Claims of Memory. 32.
30
would not need to use resources to house and feed them. In the end, his request was
granted and the round-ups were planned for July 16 and 17. 73
In the early morning hours, Jewish families were pulled from their homes with
“considerable force” by over 4,500 French police involved in the procedure. From there,
they were forced onto buses where they were taken to the Vélodrom d’Hiver, a stadium
designed for less than 2,000 people. Here, over 8,000 men, women, and children
crammed into the space where they lived without food, water, or sanitation. To make
this already horrific scene even more tragic, children were separated from their parents
because the decree that permitted the deportation of those younger than fifteen was not
passed until July 31. For two weeks, children waited in the Vélodrom without their
family, living in deplorable conditions. 74
Once French citizens discovered what had happened on July 16 and 17, the
population was outraged, especially by the harsh treatment of the children. This great
disappointment in the Vichy government forced Laval to end all participation with the
deportations. Still, by the end of the war, “approximately one-quarter of the Jewish
population of France had fallen victim to the Holocaust.” 75 Immediately following the
Occupation, de Gaulle’s proposal to ignore the horrors of the past allowed situations
such as this to go unnoticed. After the breakthrough in 1968 that prompted France to
learn from the past and prepare for the future, French citizens and leaders tried to find a
way to memorialize these events in the country’s memory.
73
Ibid, 40-41.
Ibid, 41-42.
75
Ibid, 43.
74
31
Following the Liberation, the Vélodrom d’Hiver was demolished and de Gaulle
had a plaque erected in this spot. On the plate the following message was inscribed:
On July 16, 1942,
thirty thousand
Jewish men, women and children
victims of racial persecution
were confined in this place by order of the Nazi occupier,
all separated from each other,
they were deported to Germany and the concentration camps.
Free men, remember. 76
This statement, while paying respect to the lives lost by Jewish citizens, ignored all
aspects of French involvement in the deportations. Furthermore, the number of men,
women, and children involved in the round-up was inaccurate and failed to mention the
fact that out of all those transported to the Vélodrom, 4,115 were children. 77 Ignoring the
details of this event illustrated de Gaulle’s desire to separate the nation from the
atrocities committed by the Vichy regime. Blaming the occupying forces, as well as
select leaders who had permitted these actions, meant that the nation could remain
honorable. As seen by the postwar events, this only caused a greater division amongst
French citizens and the evolution of this monument mirrored France’s attempt to accept
the past.
Once again, François Mitterrand symbolized the internal conflict which emerged
in France. In 1992, as the fiftieth anniversary of the round-ups approached, French
citizens requested that President Mitterrand attend the upcoming ceremony. Until this
point in time, the yearly commemoration was mostly attended by Jews, and a newly
formed group, the Committée Vél d’Hiv ’42, proposed in a petition signed by over two
76
77
Ibid, 44.
Ibid, 44.
32
hundred Frenchmen and published in Le Monde that Mitterrand’s presence at the event
would be a symbolic acknowledgment of France’s involvement in these atrocities.
Mitterrand agreed to attend the ceremony, but on July 14, Bastille Day, the President
made an announcement that proposed a negative attitude regarding the situation. He
claimed that, “In 1940, there was a French state, it was Vichy, it was not the Republic.
And it is this French State that that we must hold accountable. Do not ask the Republic
to be accountable, she did what she had to do!” 78 Mitterrand’s statement coincided with
the myth de Gaulle had created years ago. According to him, the atrocities committed in
1942 were the act of the Vichy State and not the Republic. In this way, a political leader
of France once again tried to place the blame for these actions on a select few instead
of acknowledging that people of the nation had committed these acts of violence.
Mitterrand’s response infuriated the committee and they released a counter
argument to the president. In this new statement, the Committée Vél d’Hiv ’42 pointed
out that Mitterrand failed to acknowledge that while the “Vichy State” had committed
these acts, they were still perpetrated by “French administrators, French magistrates,
and French police” who had “accepted to swear an oath of loyalty to Pétain, to carry out
inhumane orders and at times to take criminal initiatives themselves, forgetting that they
had been named to their position by a republican state.”79 This argument echoed
Mitterrand’s past. He too said the pledge to Pétain that stated, “‘I offer myself up to
78
“En 1940, il y eut un État français, c'était le régime de Vichy, ce n'était pas la
République. Et c'est à cet État français, qu'on doit demander des comptes. Ne demandez pas
de comptes à cette République, elle a fait ce qu'elle devait!” Anna Senik. “L'histoire
mouvementée de la commémoration de la rafle du ‘Vel' d'Hiv’” Le Monde (Paris), July 16, 2012.
79
Conan and Rousso, Vichy an Ever-Present Past, 23.
33
Marshall Pétain just as he offered himself up for France. I pledge to serve his teachings
and to remain faithful to him and to his work.’” 80 Trying to conceal his past, he failed to
understand the impact of his statement. Politically, separating the Republic from Vichy
distanced himself from his past in Pétain’s regime, an obstacle he had tried to overcome
since his election, but, in doing this, he preserved the divides that had existed in France
for decades. What the Vél d’Hiv committee brought to light, that Mitterrand could not,
was the importance of holding the entire nation responsible for the crimes committed
during the war. Recognizing that the story of the Resistance portrayed by de Gaulle had
in fact been a myth allowed France to look past the defining categories such as resistor
or collaborator and focus on the nation as a whole.
These events in 1992, allowed France to view the Occupation in a new light. This
attempt to rewrite history can be seen in the current plaque at the Vél d’Hiv memorial.
Today, the message reads,
On July 16 and 17, 1942
Thirteen thousand one hundred and fifty-two Jews were arrested
In Paris and its suburbs
deported and assassinated at Auschwitz.
In the Vélodrom d’Hiver, which stood here,
Four thousand one hundred and fifteen children
Two thousand nine hundred and sixteen women
One thousand one hundred and twenty-nine men
Were confined under inhuman conditions,
by the police of the Vichy government,
on the order of the Nazi occupiers.
May those who tried to come to their aid be thanked.
Passer-by remember! 81
While the new plaque offers more precise information regarding the round-ups, the
extent to which the Vichy government collaborated with the Germans is still vague. 82
80
81
Ibid, 140.
Wiedmer, The Claims of Memory. 45.
34
Ignoring that the children had been chosen for the deportations by Laval himself shows
that even in the present day, France still struggles with the events of the past; however,
the country has come a long from the early political conflict that split the nation in two.
The ideological divide that created a rift in France for over fifty years saw its
beginning with the rise of the Popular Front in 1930. Responding to the growth of
fascism, these leaders hoped to create a better future for France. Communist success
was challenged in 1940 when France’s defeat during the Second World War allowed
conservatives to assume control. The citizens believed that this government would offer
much needed social reforms when in reality, Pétain’s regime hoped to stop the spread
of communism and collaborate with the Germans by enacting repressive laws against
the French. These actions provoked retaliation against Vichy from resistors as violence
escalated between fellow Frenchmen. Following the war, de Gaulle’s vision of a united
Resistance movement that encompassed the whole nation, minus a selected few
leaders who he deemed traitors, prevented the country from acknowledging the crimes
committed during the war. His actions, while able to stabilize the nation at the time,
never allowed them to resolve the political discord that consumed France. These
unsettled difference plagued postwar decisions as political leaders tried to navigate
international conflicts within the context of the Second World War.
The Algerian War emerged as one of the first conflicts to refuel the political
unrest that existed during the Occupation. Unsure of how to define France’s foreign
territories, leaders from both the right and the left fought over the future of Algeria. Both
sides identified with groups from the 1940s, and issues of loyalty to the nation
82
Ibid, 45.
35
complicated the decision to free sections of the French empire. The legacy of the
Occupation took on new meaning during 1968 when a young generation of resistors
challenged an increasingly oppressive government. Led by students who labeled their
enemy based on terms from the war, these communist sympathizers hoped to change
the bleak situation of the French education system. As protests grew, the entire nation
took part in demonstrations and pushed the country on the edge of a civil war. Finally,
the evolution of the Vél d’Hiv memorial symbolized France’s wavering image of the
Occupation. Initially ignoring Vichy’s involvement in the implementation of the Final
Solution, France’s fascination with the past prompted change in the memory of the war.
Mitterrand’s battle with the Committée Vél d’Hiv ’42, illustrated the nation’s desire to
publically acknowledge the horrendous acts committed by French police. Accepting
their role in Nazi atrocities, France obtained the ability to dissolve the political divides
that were apparent in France since before the war. While France took over half a
century to begin this process of acceptance, the ideological struggle which consumed
society illustrates the importance of looking to the future for hope rather than trusting the
myths of the past.
36
Bibliography
Cohen, William B. “The Algerian War, the French State and Official Memory.”
Réflexions Historiques 28, no. 2 (2002): 219-239.
Colton, Joel. “Léon Blum and the French Socialists as a Government Party.” The
Journal of Politics 15, no. 4 (1953): 517-543.
Conan, Éric and Henry Rousso. Vichy an Ever-Present Past (Hanover: University
Press, 1998).
Darlan, François. “Vice Premier Darlan’s Broadcast to the French People.” The New
York Times. May 23, 1941.
De Gaulle, Charles. “Appel du 18 Juin 1940 du Général de Gaulle,” Charles-deGaulle.org, http://www.charles-de-gaulle.org/pages/l-homme/dossiersthematiques/1940-1944-la-seconde-guerre-mondiale/l-appel-du-18juin/documents/l-appel-du-18-juin-1940.php.
De Gaulle, Charles. The War Memoirs of Charles de Gaulle, Unity: 1942-1944
Documents, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1959).
De Gaulle, Charles. The War Memoirs of Charles de Gaulle, Salvation: 1944-1946
Documents, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1960).
Elster, Jon. “Redemption for Wrongdoing: The Fate of Collaborators after 1945.”The
Journal of Conflict Resolution 50, no. 3 (2006): 324-338.
Grenard, Fabrice. “Les Implication Politiques du Ravitaillement en France Sous
l'Occupation.” Vingtieme Siecle 94 (2007): 199-215.
37
Horne, Alistair. A Savage War of Peace: Algeria, 1954-1962. (Harmondsworth, Eng.:
Penguin Books, 1979).
Judt, Tony. Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945. (New York: Penguin Press,
2005).
The New York Times. “A Clash Follows Toulouse Rally: Gaullist and Anti-Gaullist
Students Stage Fight.” June 1, 1968.
The New York Times, “France to Dissolve Freemasons' Order: Bans All Secret
Societies-- Yugoslav Lodge Disbands Author,” August 2, 1940.
The New York Times. “French Workers Take Over Plants As Unrest Widens: Dozens of
Factories Being Held by the Strikers - Red Flags Are Raised Student Actions
Abate Some Air Fligths Canceled After Orly Employees Call a 48-Hour Stoppage
French Workers Take Over Plants.” May 18, 1968.
The New York Times. “Students Backed by French Unions: 3 Biggest Federations Call
24-Hour Strike Tomorrow -- Paris Riot Toll Heavy French Strike Called to Back
Students.” May 12, 1968.
Newman, Michael. “Leon Blum, French Socialism, and European Unity, 1940-50.” The
Historical Journal 24, no. 1 (1981): 193-314.
Ousby, Ian. Occupation: The Ordeal of France, 1940-1944. (New York: St. Martin's
Press, 1998).
Paxton, Robert O. Vichy France: Old Guard and New Order 1940-1944. Morningside
ed. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982).
38
Rousso, Henry. The Vichy Syndrome: History and Memory in France since 1944.
(Harvard University Press, 1994).
Senik, Anna. “L'Histoire Mouvementée de la Commémoration de la Rafle du ‘Vel'
d'Hiv’” Le Monde (Paris), July 16, 2012.
Wall, Irwin M. “Teaching the French Popular Front.” The History Teacher 20, no. 3
(1987): 361-378.
Wall, Irwin M. “The French Communists and the Algerian War.” Colonial Conflicts to
Postcolonial Memories 12, no. 3 (2002): 521-543.
Wiedmer, Caroline Alice. The Claims of Memory: Representations of the Holocaust in
Contemporary Germany and France. (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1999).
Zack, Lizabeth. “Who Fought the Algerian War? Political Identity and Conflict in FrenchRuled Algeria.” International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society 16, no. 1
(2002): 55-97.
Zdatny, Steven. “Collaboration or Resistance? French Hairdressers and Vichy's Labor
Charter.” French Historical Studies 20, no. 4 (1997): 737-772.
39
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Identity and Deformity in Wilde’s The Picture of
Dorian Gray and Stevenson’s Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
Faith Rinklin
Abstract: Oscar Wilde’s novel, The Picture of Dorian Gray, and Robert Louis
Stevenson’s novel, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, depict a protagonist that chooses to alter
his natural human identity in a way that allows him see an immoral side of himself while
still maintaining a respectable façade to the rest of the world. Gray and Jekyll abuse
their other identities hedonistically until their other identities are threatened to become
public, which forces each protagonist to hide their immoral selves and attempt to rejoin
their split identities. However, both of the protagonists’ experiments end in failure
because they push past the limit of power that an individual naturally possesses over
his own identity. Through examination of these texts, it is evident that these failures
reflect the Victorian society’s refusal to loosen their strict moral code that was built on
outward appearances. Stevenson and Wilde challenged Victorian society by depicting
two characters of high esteem that degenerate due to society’s pressure to keep the
appearance of a noble character when in reality, a duality of what is labeled both good
and evil is inherent within everyone.
The pronoun “I” is singular in nature—it only refers to one person. But in Robert
Louis Stevenson’s novel, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, and Oscar Wilde’s novel, The Picture
of Dorian Gray, each protagonist chooses to alter his natural human identity in a way
that allows him meet an immoral side of himself while still maintain a respectable façade
to the rest of the world. By recognizing they are two people and not just one, Jekyll and
Dorian have the power to make “I” become plural and “we” become singular. Dorian’s
portrait reflects his own soul’s age and corruptness allowing him to appear infinitely
young and beautiful on the outside. While Dr. Jekyll can attend dinner parties as his
reputable self, whenever he wants to he can assume an entirely different identity in
Edward Hyde that even his closest friends acknowledge as a completely separate
person. Gray and Jekyll continue to abuse their other identities as a way to allow them
to seek pleasure solely for themselves however when their other identities are
40
threatened to become public, each protagonist is forced to closet their immoral selves
and attempt to remarry their split identities. The protagonists’ failed experimentation to
push past the limitation of the power an individual naturally possesses over his own
identity reflects the Victorian society’s refusal to loosen their strict moral code built on
outward appearances for fear that a new morality, one based on hedonism and the rise
of a lower class, would deform their society into something unrecognizable and most
certainly horrific with the turn of the new century. Stevenson and Wilde challenged
Victorian society’s oppressive, self-preserving strict moral code that was gate kept by
the upper class at the end of the 19th century by depicting two characters of high esteem
that degenerate due to society’s pressure to keep the appearance of noble character
when in reality, a duality of what is labeled both good and evil is inherent within
everyone.
In the late 1800s, there was one term in particular that instilled fear and wonder
in the popular culture of the time—degeneration. This term was more of a loose theory
that found its way into almost every important discipline. Deviation and degeneration
were terms that were new to a culture that did not want to fully understand the potential
definition of these terms, as that would mean they were already in effect. Stephen
Arata points to Robert Nye to explain, “the 1880s degeneration theory ‘served to provide
a continuum between biological and social thought that makes nonsense of the usual
efforts to distinguish between them, and was so culturally useful that it could explain
persuasively all the pathologies from which the nation suffered’” (Arata 15). The
sources of these pathologies and the general anxieties that the late Victorians felt dealt
41
with “Nation, body, and art: it seemed to many that their respective declines were
mutually implicated. Under these broad headings were arrayed a variety of more
specific…anxieties,” some of these including “…the spread of urban slums, the growth
of ‘criminal classes,’ the proliferation of ‘deviant’ sexualities, [and] the rise of decadent
art…” (2). It is no wonder then, that the Victorians would address these issues by
attempting to pretend they did not exist or cling traditional values, such as praising the
wealthy and well-established families. Major concerns that propelled degeneration were
the concept of the Other and how “…it covertly expresses the anxieties of a middle
class worried about its own present status and future prospects” (32).
One particular reason outward appearances were so important to the Victorians
during the time of degeneration was because of advancements in criminology. Cesare
Lombroso came up with a theory that explained criminal behavior was biological. He
“…painted a refined portrait of the ‘born criminal,’ a reversion of a primitive subhuman
creature described as an atavistic remnant of an ancestral type. He claimed to have
identified significant anatomical and physiological characteristics which distinguished
the criminal from his normal counterpart…” (Harris 81). This idea that people
themselves could actually regress and degenerate into something else was a legitimate
fear at the time Stevenson and Wilde wrote their works. The Victorians were on a witch
hunt to find these abnormalities in people. Harris explains, “They sought to identify the
dangerous individual by identifying a range of competing and sometimes hidden moral,
social, and physical symptoms” (84).
42
The motivations for Dr. Jekyll to discover a way to separate his competing selves
and for Dorian Gray to wish that his picture would depict his sins rather than his face are
both for personal gain. Dr. Jekyll understands from an early age that his natural
disposition and what Victorian society expects of him is different, which forces him to
conceal a part of himself. He states that, “With every day, and from both sides of my
intelligence, the moral and the intellectual, I thus drew steadily nearer to that truth…that
man is not truly one, but truly two” (Stevenson 111). Dr. Jekyll is extremely sensitive to
both parts of his conscious and is willing to risk his life in order to spilt them so that,
“…the unjust might go his way, delivered from the aspirations and remorse of his more
upright twin; and the just could walk steadfastly and securely on his upward path…”
(112). For Dr. Jekyll, this would solve the natural tensions that exist in everyone so the
moral side of a person would not feel like it must punish the immoral, or the immoral be
deprived of pleasure by the moral side. Indeed, as Dr. Jekyll states his first feeling after
he takes his potion that succeeds in splitting these elements of the self, he feels
youthful and “an unknown but not an innocent freedom of the soul” (113). Dr. Jekyll’s
main benefit of having separate personalities is being able to keep his reputation intact.
As a professional, Dr. Jekyll is expected to be friends with other people with
similar social statues and intellectual interests. As the narrator notes about Mr.
Utterson, “It is the mark of a modest man to accept his friendly circle ready-made from
the hands of opportunity; and that was the lawyer's way. His friends were those of his
own blood or those whom he had known the longest…” (48). Mr. Utterson, the first
character the reader meets, is someone of high morality and ethics, as he was often
43
“…the last good influence in the lives of downgoing men” and exactly what Victorian
society would expect for his social class (47). He is the model man—intelligent, good
natured, but not overly emotional, and highly reasonable. Since Mr. Utterson is such
good friends with Dr. Jekyll and he only associates with respectable and wellestablished people, Dr. Jekyll’s friendship with Utterson allows Dr. Jekyll to be a
prominent person in society by being in the professional circle. His career also could
benefit from such a high status, for example when he meets and discusses scientific
principles with Dr. Lanyon, although they disagree with each other’s ideologies.
Utterson is a trusted source to determine ones’ character throughout the novel. The
very idea of Mr. Hyde disgusts him to the point where Utterson decides to seek him out,
and upon finding him, notices “…an impression of deformity without any nameable
malformation…” and thinks Mr. Hyde is so unsettling because it might be “…the mere
radiance of a foul soul that thus transpires through…” (61). However, with the ability to
switch back to Dr. Jekyll at any moment, Dr. Jekyll can maintain his professional and
social status. Jekyll does not blame himself for Hyde’s actions, “Yet Hyde is safely
other—‘It was Hyde, after all, and Hyde alone, that was guilty’” (Oats 605).
Similarly to Dr. Jekyll’s motivation to explore separate identities, Dorian Gray
makes his wish for his picture to become old and he to stay forever young based on
what society values. Dorian thinks nothing special about his face until meeting Lord
Henry, who completely shapes his views on life and the importance of beauty by
explaining that Dorian’s “…youth is the one thing worth having” (Wilde 24). Although
Dorian Gray does not at first realize how much his everlasting youth will benefit him at
44
the time of his wish, he is influenced greatly by Lord Henry’s one conversation with him
and thereby prescribes to many of his theories and views about beauty, youth, and
society. Lord Henry serves as a mentor that allows Dorian to understand what society
expects of someone of his wealth and prominence, including appreciating aesthetics
and the arts. At the theater, Dorian is only known by the name “Prince Charming.”
Because of his looks, Dorian never even has to face an inquiry about Sybil’s death,
which he should claim responsibly for. When confronted by her brother, James,
eighteen years later, Dorian again uses his youth to get out of the life or death situation,
claiming he could not possibly be the man James was looking for simply based on his
appearance. While Dr. Jekyll does run the risk of Mr. Hyde being caught for his murder
of Mr. Carew, Dorian is able to miraculously escape from any possible responsibility he
would need to accept for his crimes because his portrait, an entirely separate entity,
shows his true age and corruption of his soul.
Dr. Jekyll feels finally freed with the simple knowledge that he can change into
Mr. Hyde at any time, and after taking some measures to secure that his possessions
be given to Mr. Hyde should he go missing for three or more months or as he exclaims,
“Think of it—I did not even exist!” (Stevenson 116). He feels secure and is able to take
the joy that comes with no one knowing who he is. While Dr. Jekyll is both able to quiet
his conscious about him turning into Mr. Hyde by working to undo the wrong of his alter
ego and by justifying that Hyde is an entirely different person, he does start to question
the overall morality that he possess. This is evident especially when he begins to notice
that Mr. Hyde starts growing taller, representative of his immoral side becoming more
45
developed than it had originally been before his experimentation. As Jekyll remarks,
“…I was slowly losing hold of my original and better self, and becoming slowly
incorporated with my second and worse” (120). Finally, Jekyll realizes that he has
become a sort of slave to his other self. He has to double and triple his potion to turn
back into Dr. Jekyll, which used to be the easy part, however as his experiment
continued, Mr. Hyde becomes harder and harder to throw off. The fact that Dr. Jekyll
has to struggle to become himself again and starts changing from Dr. Jekyll to Mr. Hyde
unprovoked is noticed earlier by the astute Mr. Utterson, who besides caring for his
friend, is a symbol of Victorian society calling at his door and commenting on the
strangeness of why someone with such social stature is never seen in the daytime
anymore. Even the chapter titles suggest when Dr. Jekyll realizes that his experiment
has gone too far. Utterson fears that Mr. Hyde will try to kill Dr. Jekyll, knowing that he
is the benefactor of the will, however the chapter where he confronts Dr. Jekyll is titled
“Dr. Jekyll Was Quite at Ease,” suggesting that he felt in control in his experiment and
secure in the character of Mr. Hyde. The next chapter is titled “The Carew Murder
Case,” which is a turning point for Dr. Jekyll in his moral stance toward allowing himself
to become Mr. Hyde anymore. Jekyll knows that with a witness, the police are out
looking for Mr. Hyde and he cannot allow himself to transform into Hyde as an outlet for
his hedonistic pleasure. After the murder, several chapters begin with “an incident,” for
example “The Incident of the Letter” and “The Incident at the Window.” With each
chapter after the murder case, more “incidents” become public and Jekyll cannot hide
behind his other identity anymore.
46
Jekyll realizes the consequences of Hyde, saying to Utterson, “I cannot care
what becomes of Mr. Hyde; I am quite done with him. I was thinking of my own
character, which this hateful business has rather exposed” (75-6). Since Dr. Jekyll
believes that he can control when he changes into Mr. Hyde, Jekyll is able to be
confident that Mr. Hyde will never be seen again. Critic Benjamin O’Dell notices how
Stevenson stylistically made Hyde (and therefore Jekyll’s) guilt inescapable, writing,
“Stevenson’s decision to cast the scene as a sensational newspaper account not only
identifies a primary audience for Hyde’s performance in the London citizenry but begins
the process of reevaluating his character in the public realm” (515). Clearly, losing his
status to the public as a good doctor, friend, and someone who is moral and
respectable in society would be a large fear for someone in Jekyll’s position. Arata
points out that, “As Jekyll repeatedly insists Hyde indulges no vices that Jekyll himself
did not enjoy. What differs is the manner in which they enjoy them: Hyde openly and
vulgarly, Jekyll discretely and with an eye to maintain his good name. As Hyde learns
from his encounter with Enfield, gentlemen may sin so long as appearances are
preserved” (40). Jekyll can indulge in Mr. Hyde only for as long as his identity is kept
private enough not to reflect badly upon Jekyll, who he is most readily associated with.
In order to retain this status he must publicly denounce Mr. Hyde and be able to
disassociate himself from him in the public realm. Dr. Jekyll realizes that, “To cast it in
with Mr. Hyde was…to become despised and friendless” (Stevenson 120). With this,
Jekyll chooses to remarry his good and evil sides together forever in the natural human
form, with his single identity, stating that, “Dr. Jekyll was now my city of refuge” (123).
47
While Dr. Jekyll realizes the value of the freedom he has created for himself and that he
is able get away with doing anything that he wishes for his own pleasure, he still has a
conscience and feels intense remorse and guilt for the murder which makes him swear
off Mr. Hyde for forever.
Dorian Gray however, is incapable of feeling any emotion when he faces his
corruption on the portrait. Although Dr. Jekyll personally takes responsibility of his
crimes in his full statement of his case, Dorian never does. Basil believes that anyone
who lives for themselves will have a price to pay, one of “consciousness of
degradation,” but Dorian, in love with Sybil claims that pleasure “…is to adore someone”
(Wilde 76). Basil assumes that anyone who realizes their own morality would have to
understand their own sins. After all, he is the only uncorrupted force in the book who
tries to protect and save Dorian from any slander and degradation of his beauty.
Ironically, it is Dorian who correctly foreshadows his downfall. For him pleasure
is adoring someone. While he means Sybil at the time, later the only person he adores
is himself. He is fascinated with his own transformation of his soul. At first, Dorian
vows to do nothing wrong after lamenting the portrait’s loss of beauty by its curled
mouth. He sees the picture as something that will help him through his life. After all,
“There were opiates for remorse, drugs that could lull the moral sense to sleep. But
here was a visible symbol of the degradation of sin. Here was an ever-present sign of
the ruin men brought upon their souls” (93). Although Dorian realizes what this could
mean for him, “…pleasure subtle and secret, wild joys and wilder sins…” he is
saddened most about the portrait’s fate and that it was going “to become a monstrous
48
and loathsome thing, to be hidden away in a locked room, to be shut out for the sunlight
that had so often touched to brighter gold the waving wonder of its hair…” (102).
Although Dorian quickly warms up to the idea of being able to have eternal youth and
beauty, he realizes that this means he will have to live his public and private lives
separately when Basil came and asked to exhibit the picture.
Dorian Gray knows that “The portrait must be hidden away at all costs. He could
not run such a risk of discovery again. It had been mad of him to have allowed the thing
to remain, even for an hour, in a room to which any of his friends had access” (113).
Dorian’s background and ancestry is filled with prominent people and he certainly has
the wealth and physical appearance that would charm the upper class of Victorian
society. With Lord Henry’s charisma, the dynamic duo explore the arts and high class
social gatherings. Alone, Dorian delves further and further into the bowels of seedy
areas of London. While unlike Dr. Jekyll, who can release Mr. Hyde to assume a
completely different identity and face, Dorian is stuck with the exact same face that he
had the day Basil finished his painting. He cannot pretend to be someone he is not.
Where society respected Dr. Jekyll and thought of Mr. Hyde as a deformed apelike creature, Dorian can be and is only himself. His new lifestyle does not go
unnoticed, as “…his extraordinary absences became notorious, and, when he used to
reappear again in society, men would whisper to each other in corners, or pass him with
a sneer, or look at him with cold searching eyes, as though they were determined to
discover his secret” (136). Dorian becomes paranoid of everyone finding out his secret,
worried that one of his servants will discover the picture even though he has the only
49
key to the room and covers the picture in an attempt to bury it with a funeral pall.
However, even with the rumors of his dubious outings, Dorian is able to maintain his
status in society simply because “society, civilized society at least, is never very ready
to believe anything to the detriment of those who are both rich and fascinating. It feels
instinctively that manners are of more importance than morals…” (136). Even though
Dorian’s true soul and countenance is on the picture, which is locked in his attic, he
does not have to hide his face for shame of his actions, so long as he continues to play
the part of a great entertainer and beautiful youth, something he does wonderfully. If all
that society wants from Dorian is a well-educated, rich, well-mannered man, he can
stave off any remarks that might damage his respectability or cause his reputation to
suffer. Even Lord Henry recognizes the absurdity of the Victorian culture. At a party,
the Duchess comments that “All good hats are made out of nothing.” Lord Henry is
quick to reply, “Like all good reputations…,” insinuating that Victorians can be
hypocritical and reputations are based on wealth and appearance rather than morals
and ethics (188).
Similar to Dr. Jekyll revealing his secret to Dr. Lanyon, Dorian reveals his
changed portrait to its creator, Basil. Lanyon is understandably shocked to see Dr.
Jekyll’s transformation from Mr. Hyde to himself and dies shortly afterward, but does not
reveal the truth about Dr. Jekyll until after his death by letter to Mr. Utterson. He keeps
this secret as it is from a doctor to a doctor. Basil too does not believe the portrait is his
own, saying that the paints had poison in them or that mildew had gotten into the
canvas. Dorian attempts to get through to him by saying, “Each of us has Heaven and
50
Hell in him, Basil” (150). Basil believes that there is still a chance for redemption if
Dorian will try and pray, but Dorian feels as though the painting and by extension his
soul, are helpless and ruined forever. All that he will ever have is his own beauty and
his respectable place in society. His morals do not matter, simply his manners.
Immediately after murdering Basil, Dorian is calm and detached, simply creating
a quick alibi by waking his servants to let him inside and going to bed. He sleeps well
and is disgusted by the thought of Basil’s body in his attic, not that he killed a man. This
shows his detachment from morality and also his fixation on the physical world. Dorian
only cares about his outward appearance, not even his reputation, as evidence by what
he tells Basil, “I love scandals about other people, but scandals about myself don’t
interest me” (143). He knows that as long as he continues to be handsome he can
continue his life of pleasure without consequence. Dorian’s lack of interest in morality is
at first because his corruption and age are shown on his picture. It is something that he
can hide away in his attic and never look at. His nonphysical soul becomes physical
through the portrait, and when he realizes that his actions are corrupting the picture, it is
the first time that he vows to be a better person. Finally, the picture is something that
cannot be ignored, which causes him to stab it and force the nonphysical to become the
physical and be thrust upon himself which results in his demise.
Dorian further shows his lack of morality and detachedness by mixing Campbell
up in the murder by blackmailing him to remove the body by completely dissolving it.
This is his way of ensuring that the physical becomes completely nonphysical. Being
careful to play the perfect role that society cares about, manners over morals, Dorian
51
arrives at a party at eight-thirty when Campbell did not leave his house until a while after
seven” (166-67). Even when Dorian suggests that he killed Basil to Lord Henry, Lord
Henry laughs, saying that, “It is not in you to commit a murder…crime belongs
exclusively to the lower orders. I don’t blame them in the smallest degree. I should
fancy that crime was to them what art is to us, simply a method of procuring
extraordinary sensations” (203). Lord Henry, a mouthpiece for the upper class Victorian
society and supposed to be the person who knows Dorian the best is able to say that he
is incapable of committing a crime. He is just as oblivious as everyone else about
Dorian’s lifestyle and what his true morality is made up of. Lord Henry also brings to
light the social class issue of who commits crimes and why, much of which only has to
do with appearance and the Victorians’ overemphasized placement upon physical
appearance.
A large part of Victorian culture revolved around the emphasis that was placed
on appearances. At a time when criminology as a discipline first started taking off,
many people believed that criminals were simply people who had not developed all the
way and were a sort of modern caveman with low intelligence and most importantly,
physical deformities. Many of these characteristics were appearance or related to the
body. Arata discusses many of the ways to classify these criminals, a few of them
being, “The droop of a lip, the curve of an ear, the twitchings of a hand all seemed to
signify univocally, attesting to pathology” (19). The body itself becomes a sign of a
degenerate and someone who cannot be anything but a detriment to society.
52
Something is off. Utterson is so astute that he notes a different kind of footstep on the
pavement before he meets Mr. Hyde for the first time (Stevenson 59).
Although the whole point of Dorian’s wish was to be unchanged, scholar Jill
Larson recognizes how abnormal this is. She writes, “Unlike a natural face, Dorian’s is
inexpressive of the pain he feels, and he is therefore emotionally isolated from others,
all of whom he dupes whether he wants to or not. The portrait, meanwhile, lives and
vividly registers his heartlessness. Dorian’s life has become a painting” (103). No one
in The Picture of Dorian Gray questions why he is so unchanged by time and just
because it is beautiful, there is does not seem to be anything strange about him, except
for the discredited rumors.
Still, Dorian Gray, as unemotional as he is, recognizes how ugly his picture has
become and vows to live by a higher moral code. In regards to Sybil, Dorian tells Lord
Henry, “I want to be good. I can’t bear the idea of my soul being hideous,” to which
Lord Henry responds “A very charming artistic basis for ethics…” (Wilde 94-95). Once
again, Dorian vows to try to be a better person in order to reverse the portrait’s fate. By
preserving a younger lady’s innocence, he deems himself as a reformed man. However
when he checks his portrait, no sign of his soul repairing itself is seen. He realizes that
even the lofty goal of becoming a better person was due to vanity. He thinks, “Vanity?
Curiosity? Hypocrisy? Had there been nothing more than in his renunciation than that?
There had been something more. At least he thought so. But who could tell?… No.
There had been nothing more. Through vanity he had spared her. In hypocrisy he had
worn the mask of goodness. For curiosity’s sake he had tried the denial of self. He
53
recognized that now” (212). Dorian realizes that his denial of self has done nothing to
make him a more moral person. .
Lord Henry suggests that this will cause a longing for the forbidden (as swearing
off Hyde did for Jekyll, making Hyde come back even stronger). In an article by Cohen,
he goes even further, “By negating pleasure, the natural expressions of the body,
society inhibits the body’s sensuous potential and circumscribes feeling within
established moral codes” (79). Dorian keeps giving into temptation for his own
hedonistic pleasures and can continue to, for society does not inhibit him, as it prizes
him for his beauty and wealth instead. For Dorian, his picture is a mirror into his soul.
Wilde wanted to create this mirror as a way to show what society would need to do in
order to get rid of the anxiety that was so prominent at the turn of the century: look
toward self-realization. Baker puts it succinctly, “In turn, the self-realization of the
individual makes for a better society in general, for Wilde believed that the progress of
society was dependent upon the progress of the individual” (351). Dorian never comes
to a self-realization that is not out of vanity, and therefore cannot contribute anything to
society except for his aesthetic. When he tries to ruin the picture and thereby destroy
the sins he only causes self-destruction. Jekyll also never comes to self-realization. In
fact, in Irving Saposnik argues that,
Because of his self-delusion, Jekyll remains unaware of the true results of his
experiment…he learns little about himself or about the essential failure of his
experiment, and remains convinced that the incompatible parts of his being can
be separated. This, as much as anything else, is Henry Jekyll’s tragedy. He is
54
so enmeshed in his self-woven net of duplicity that he cannot identify the two
entities whose separation he hopes to achieve. By seeing Hyde as another
being rather than as part of himself, he is forced to deny the most significant
result of his experiment and indeed of his entire story, the inescapable
conclusion that man must dwell in uncomfortable but necessary harmony with his
multiple selves” (724).
Stevenson and Wilde both believe that man possesses duality and must come to this
realization in order to address it. Without self-reflection or realization, the individual or
society as a whole will not be able to address issues of morality and the general anxiety
felt at the turn of the century.
The concept of art as a mirror and the idea of aestheticizing ethics are prominent
in The Picture of Dorian Gray. In the preface of Dorian Gray, Wilde makes the dramatic
statement that “All art is quite useless” (Wilde 4). And for Dorian, it is. Wilde creates a
paradox with the entire work by showing how morality and art or aesthetics do not mix,
only to reveal through the character of Dorian, how much they share in common.
While Dorian can use his portrait as a way to see what he would look like had he
aged normally and how damaged his soul is, he cannot actually use his portrait as a
true work of art to be hung up in his home for his many guests to come and enjoy. He
bans Basil from ever putting the portrait in an exhibit, which is where it would be seen
and enjoyed by many, and possibly make Basil’s career better. The artist in the end is
tortured by what he created, saying that he worshipped something with “…the eyes of a
devil…” and Dorian too eventually is haunted by his covered up picture so that he must
55
destroy it (150). In an article entitled “A Tragedy of the Artist: The Picture of Dorian
Gray,” the author maintains that Basil is to blame for Dorian’s downfall (as does Dorian
himself) because he started a sequence that could not be stopped. He states, “The
chain of events seems to be: self-consciousness of the artist, corruption of the ideal,
and a hedonistic pursuit of exquisite sensation;” therefore Basil, who serves as the only
character who has a moral conscious at all “has been led away from the true function of
the artist by his slavish worship of Dorian’s physical charms” (Baker 353). Although it is
Lord Henry that influences Dorian to think that youth is his most valuable attribute, Basil
helps to perpetuate this idea by creating and worshipping this ideal, proving that even
the moral individuals in Victorian society placed great importance on outward
appearances and what ideal beauty meant. As long as Dorian’s picture takes the blow
for his morals, the picture must be hidden and unappreciated by everyone who could
possibly enjoy it. Should Dorian have aged normally and the picture stayed the same, it
would have been a crowning jewel in any collection and Basil’s masterpiece. Then
however, Dorian would not have escaped the destruction his morality would have
caused to his reputation. Or, should he live very morally consciously, he never would
have been able to experience doing something for sheer pleasure.
Art and morality were clearly not meant to mix from the start. This is evident by
the ending of the novel. When Dorian stabs the painting in order to destroy this useless
piece of art, which is nothing more than a mirror to him, he instantly takes on the age
and corruption of his soul and stabbed himself in the heart because he then became
himself from his picture. His picture however, is suddenly totally clean of any of his
56
soul’s sins and age and is once again beautiful and young. Dorian’s ethics finally
caught up to him and he is no longer anyone of consequence. His picture however, is
gorgeous and can now be enjoyed for what it was originally meant to be—a piece of
beautiful artwork. By never letting the physical objects and symbols of morality and art
mix in his novel, Wilde has created a paradox that allows him to point out what art and
morality do have in common. They rely on each other to point out the flaws or imperfect
parts of society’s morality.
For the Victorians, there was simply good and evil, moral and immoral, art or
crime. Wilde however is suggesting that these parts are not as black and white as they
seem. There is a gray area where these parts of a human’s identity mix and that
Victorian society should seek it out in the new century. Dorian’s thoughts echo those of
Dr. Jekyll’s thoughts about a human’s duality within one’s identity. Dorian believes,
“…man was a being with myriad lives and myriad sensations, a complex multiform
creature that bore within itself strange legacies of thought and passion, and whose very
flesh was tainted with the monstrous maladies of the dead” (Wilde 137). While art does
not have to be didactic, as Lord Henry notes, “Art has no influence upon action,”
Dorian’s story clearly illustrates how much one painting and one book can ruin a man’s
life (208).
Although art has basically no mention in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, the concept of
science and experimentation are extremely important. Just as Dorian comes to
understand that art and morality cannot mix physically, Jekyll learns the risk of
attempting to mix science and morality. Eventually, Jekyll cannot control turning into
57
Mr. Hyde, but does so every single time he falls asleep. He realizes that his experiment
has gone too far and that Hyde has become too developed to be ignored. Jekyll
distinguishes himself from Hyde the last time he takes the potion to become himself for
a brief time and is able to finish writing down his statement. He states that he has no
idea what will become of Hyde and in a way does not seem to care, as he remarks that,
“this is my true hour of death, and what is to follow concerns another than myself”
(Stevenson 130). By splitting his moral and immoral sides, Jekyll understands that
there will be two separate deaths of himself, one for the good and one for the bad sides
of himself. Sadly, the immoral Mr. Hyde outlives the just Dr. Jekyll.
Although science and morality also do not seem compatible, since Mr. Hyde’s
only option other than the gallows is to commit suicide, he dies in Jekyll’s clothes.
Society saw Jekyll as a professional and respectable, however the Jekyll image cannot
mix with Mr. Hyde’s immorality. How then can anyone solve the duality that Wilde and
Stevenson argue is inherent within each person? The answer might not be found in art,
science, but in the thing that art and science influences. Society itself. One must look
at the whole self, not just the good or evil, but strive for a society that is able to discuss
multiple viewpoints and not be so shallow or narrow-minded. Wilde and Stevenson are
calling for the whole self to be examined and to not judge it as much as discus the ideas
behind morality and what they do to society as a whole in order to solve moral
problems.
As long as good and evil have been around, there have been concepts about the
direction that humans are pulled in. Religions and philosophies have been based on it.
58
The concept of multiple identities, especially one good, and one bad have entranced
popular culture, art, and literature for centuries. The horror at the changing century in
the 1890s was based on the anxiety that with a new age, new discoveries, classes, and
ethics would be born. Of course this is still happening today, despite hundreds of new
theories about what makes someone “bad” or “good.” Is it their environment?
Genetics? Location? While there are still many theories, one thing that has not
changed since Victorian times is our fascination with the duality in human nature. We
wonder about the evil twin or have an angel and devil pop up on our shoulders
whenever there is a moral dilemma to make. No matter how the class system changes
or what the current society dictates, there will always be a conscience and force that
pushes society to its next moral dilemma, which to solve, it is necessary to realize the
complexity of human duality, both the moral and immoral parts.
59
Works Cited
Arata, Stephen. Fictions of Loss in the Victorian fin de siècle. New York: Cambridge UP,
1996. 1-53. Print.
Baker, Houston A, Jr. “A Tragedy of the Artist: The Picture of Dorian Gray.” NineteenthCentury Fiction 24.3 (Dec 1969): 349-355. JSTOR. Web. 20 Oct. 2013.
Cohen, Ed. “Writing Gone Wilde: Homoerotic Desire in the Closet of Representation.”
Critical
Essays on Oscar Wilde. Ed. Regenia Gagnier. New York: G. K. Hall
& Co, 1991. 68-87. Print.
Harris, Ruth. Murders and Madness: Medicine, Law, and Society in the Fin de Siècle.
Oxford:
Oxford UP, 1989. Print.
Larson, Jill. Ethics and Narrative in the English Novel 1880-1914. Cambridge:
Cambridge UP,
2001. Print.
Oats, Joyce Carol. “Jekyll/Hyde.” The Hudson Review 40.4 (1988): 603-608. JSTOR.
Web. 12
Oct. 2013.
O'Dell, Benjamin D. “Character Crisis: Hegemonic Negotiations in Robert Louis
Stevenson’s The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.” Victorian Literature
and Culture 40. 2
(2012): 509-521. Print.
Saposnik, Irving S. “The Anatomy of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.” Studies in English
Literature,
1500-1900 11.4 (Autumn 1971): 715-31. JSTOR. Web. 12 Oct.
2013.
60
Stevenson, Robert Louis. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. New York: Signet Classics, 2012.
Print.
Wilde, Oscar. The Picture of Dorian Gray. London: Penguin Books, 2003. Print.
Other Works Consulted
Dryden, Linda, and Laurence Davies. The Modern Gothic and Literary Doubles:
Stevenson, Wilde and Wells. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003.
Print.
Miyoshi, Masao. “Dr. Jekyll and the Emergence of Mr. Hyde.” College English 27.6
(Mar., 1966): 470-74 and 479-480. JSTOR. Web. 21 Oct. 2013.
Nassaar, Christopher S. “Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Gray.” Explicator 57.4 (1999):
216.
Academic Search Elite. Web. 15 Oct. 2013.
61
“Human Trafficking Explained by Marxist Feminism Theory”
Ashtyne McKenzie
Abstract: Human trafficking is a large, global problem with an estimated twenty-seven
million adult victims, more than eighty percent of them being women. The purpose of
this project is to investigate whether or not Marxist Feminism Theory, which examines
class relations and then gender relations, can thoroughly explain the patterns of global
human trafficking by region. Methods used to investigate the class relationships include:
the percentage of the population under the poverty line, unemployment rates, the rating
of the country on the Human Development Index, and the Gini coefficient. The Gender
Inequality Index rating and the percentage of the female population in the labor force
were methods used to determine gender relationships between countries. These tools
were used to assess the relationships between class, gender, and human trafficking.
The results were that regions of the world with high Gini coefficients, which measures
income inequality, along with low Gender Inequality Index ratings, had greater problems
with human trafficking and with enforcing laws to prevent crimes. Victims of human
trafficking were also generally trafficked from poor, agricultural regions to wealthier
regions of their home country or wealthier states.
Human trafficking is among the most prevalent human rights issues, affecting
almost every country on Earth. Within the next five years, the trafficking of human
beings is predicted to overtake the trafficking of drugs as the most profitable and
practiced illegal trade globally. While others look for ways to reduce human trafficking,
the question of why humans are trafficked must be answered first. One theory that can
be used to adequately explain human trafficking is Marxist Feminism because it
examines both class structure and gender structure equally.
Human Trafficking Background
Human trafficking occurs when people are forced, defrauded, or coerced into
labor or exploitation. 83 Some victims are forced physically, while others are lured to the
83
“Background on Human Trafficking”, last modified 2012,
https://www.dosomething.org/tipsandtools/background-human-trafficking.
62
economic benefits of it. Sexual slavery is by far the most common type of slavery to
which victims are subjected, with approximately 80% of all human trafficking victims
being forced to participate in the sexual trade. Women are exploited far more often than
men, with two-thirds of all trafficking victims being female. 84 Because of this statistic, it is
clear that women are affected at a much higher rate than men and that it can be
assumed that there is a relationship between sex and the global human trafficking
networks.
One of the problems encountered when attempting to discuss human trafficking
is that it is an extremely hidden business. It is nearly impossible to get reliable statistics
about the number of victims, the revenue, or what businesses the victims are being sold
to. For example, the U.N. crime fighting office estimates that there are 2.4 million people
being trafficked globally at any time, while certain human rights groups differ from that
number, with the highest estimate being twenty-seven million victims at any given
time. 85 Although there may be discrepancies when it comes to the actual statistics, there
is no denying that human trafficking is a global phenomenon that merits studying.
Marxist Feminism
Marxist Feminism is deeply rooted in the anti-capitalist writings of Karl Marx and
Friedrich Engels. Marx and Engels’ writings state that under capitalism, the bourgeois,
or the class that owns the means of production, create society to benefit them through
the creation of laws and cultural standards, in order to make a greater profit. Marxist
84
85
Ibid.
Ibid.
63
Feminism adds to the work of Marx and Engels by extending their work to explain the
oppression of women. For Marxist Feminists, class structure, or the examination of the
relationship between the bourgeois classes and the proletarian (working classes) must
first be accounted for. Then gender, or the social construct of “men” and “women” and
the relationships between them, can be brought into analysis. Marxist Feminism allows
both proletarian and bourgeois women to understand the oppression of women not as
the result of the actions of individuals with the intent to oppress, but as the product of
the political, social, and economic structures associated with capitalism. 86
Methods
In order to evaluate human trafficking with Marxist Feminism Theory, one must
look first at class relations in the country, and then look at gender relations. Another
important factor is international class relations. To evaluate the global problem of
human trafficking and to predict where victims come from and where they are destined,
it is important to evaluate the development levels of a country. One key way to evaluate
the development levels is the Human Development Index, which measures life
expectancy, education, and income, in order to determine how developed a country is.
Countries can be classified as underdeveloped, developing, or highly developed based
on their ranking on the Human Development Index.
In order to evaluate the economic situation in each country, I looked at the
percent of the population under poverty, the percent of the population that is
86
Tong, Rosemarie, Feminist Thought: A Comprehensive Introduction, (Boulder: Westview
Press, 1989), 39.
64
unemployed, the Human Development Index, and the Gini Coefficient, which measures
the income inequality in a country. In order to evaluate the role of women in a given
country, the evaluator chose to look at the Gender Inequality Index, and the percent of
the female population that participates in the workforce.
Case Studies and Statistics by Region
Table One 87
Region
Mean,
Mean,
Mean,
Mean
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
Deviation
Deviation
Deviation
Deviation
of Percent
of the Gini
of the HDI
of the GII
Under
Coefficient
Poverty
Eastern Africa
Middle Africa
46.77,
0.4147,
151.57,
106.5,
16.21
0.0501
38.34
21.52
57.2, 15.42
0.5295,
154, 26.04
132, 14.13
82.5, 36.65
0.0835
Northern Africa
Southern Africa
87
26.48,
0.3765,
110.67,
16.75
0.0284
33.62
50.82,
0.5988,
133.4,
100.6,
12.49
0.0492
14.51
11.06
All statistics from the CIA World Factbook, http://www.ciaworldfactbook.gov.
65
Western Africa
44.01,
0.4094,
165.9,
133.86,
14.44
0.0402
17.25
7.18
31.44,
0.5063,
74.38,
78.57,
25.65
0.0610
35.28
27.68
Central
42.83,
0.5010,
95.88,
88.25,
America
11.63
0.0523
29.38
16.84
South America
33.24,
0.4883,
82.58,
84.83,
14.12
0.0513
25.36
11.97
12.25, 2.85
0.3855,
7, 4
30, 12
The Caribbean
North America
0.0083
Asia
Europe
European
22.14,
0.3911,
104.23,
71.8,
40.83
0.0049
42.65
125.04
18.98, 9.08
0.3301,
57.21,
35.4, 22.1
0.0591
31.00
0.3079,
28.30,
20.46,
0.0522
16.24
13.46
23.26,
0.4028,
75.58,
90.75
94.13
0.0006
41.16
29.68,
0.3913,
64.75,
24.12
0.0225
64.48
14.40, 5.37
Union
Middle East
Oceania
68, 46.93
66
The five statistically worst regions for human trafficking, especially sourcing, are
Eastern Africa, Europe, Asia, Middle East, and Western Africa. The worst country for
human trafficking is Somalia in Eastern Africa. With the exception of Europe, all of these
regions share high average poverty rates, low ranking on the Human Development
Index, and low ranking on the Gender Inequality Index. All of the countries have
relatively low Gini Coefficients, meaning that there is not a great deal of income
disparity, or most of the population has the same share in the Gross Domestic Product,
which is the measure of the value of all goods and services produced in a country in
one year. However, this is due to the extreme poverty in regions, not policies that
attempt to equal out the disparity. Europe’s divergence from this pattern can be
attributed to its history with the Soviet Union. Most of the countries, such as Ukraine,
Kosovo, and Montenegro are in Eastern Europe, so there are still social programs and
remnants of Marxist-Leninism from the Soviet Union Era. However, Russia is one of the
worst countries for human trafficking. This can be attributed to their subjugation of outgroups and rural proletariat women, which will be discussed later in the paper.
The two regions that are almost exclusively destination countries are the
European Union and North America. Both of these regions have low poverty rates, low
Gini Coefficients, and high rankings on both the Human Development Index and the
Gender Inequality Index. Most of the people trafficked to these countries come from the
poorer surrounding regions. As with most resources and commodities, the most
industrialized and developed countries exploit and consume the labor, resources, and
people of the underdeveloped world.
67
Trafficking Explained by Marxist Feminism
In modern times, the commodity that is sold by the wage-worker to capital is
labor power. 88 Simply put, the laborer sells his time in exchange for monetary wages.
This replaced the old system of slavery, in which the individual as a whole was sold as a
commodity. 89
Human trafficking networks establishes the modern laborer-capitalist relationship
into one of master and slave. One of the reasons that human trafficking will soon
surpass drug trafficking is because drugs can only be consumed once. Human beings
can be rented and sold and resold, maximizing profit.
The maximization of profit is also key to another Marxist idea, surplus value. For
Marx, surplus value was the difference between the exchange-value and the usevalue. 90 In labor terms, this means that the difference between the wage of the worker
(use-value) and the amount of product the worker creates (exchange-value) is profit for
the capitalist. For example, if a worker exchanges an hour of her labor for $7.25, and
creates ten sweaters that sell for $20 apiece, the capitalist has a surplus value of
$192.75 in profit before material cost.
For human trafficking, the victim does not get paid for their services. In a sense,
they experience the most pure form of wages, which serve only to keep the commodity
88
Marx, Karl, “Wage, Labour, and Capital” in The Marx-Engels Reader, (New York: W.W.
Norton & Company, 1978), 204.
89
Ibid.
90
Marx, Karl, “Capital” in The Marx-Engels Reader, (New York: W.W. Norton & Company,
1978), 377-381.
68
alive. For the trafficker, that leads to a great deal of profit. Human trafficking is
estimated to generate thirty-two billion dollars in profit every year. 91 That is far more
money than a laborer could get for agricultural work or industrial services, leaving no
question as to why it appeals to some people.
The question that some people might ask is why victims sometimes are willingly
lured into the human trafficking industry. This is often a question that springs up during
discussions of sexual trade, including prostitution. The economic reality of the people
who enter into these situations is often extremely bleak. They have no means to support
themselves, so they sell their bodies in the sex trade or enter into a form of indentured
servitude. While this may seem impossibly desperate to some people, it is just a
continuation of commodity fetishism called reification.
Commodity fetishism is the idea that a commodity is a vehicle for desire. The
commodity takes on a mystical origin, that makes it appear as though the object
appeared out of nowhere. 92 For example, most people do not give any thought to who
made the clothes they wear. The clothes appear to have just always been clothes,
instead of the combination of fabric and labor power.
Because industrial technology increased, there was a necessity for an expansion
of the theory of commodity fetishism. Georg Lukacs expanded on it with the idea of
91
“Background on Human Trafficking”, last modified 2012,
https://www.dosomething.org/tipsandtools/background-human-trafficking.
92
Marx, Karl, “Capital” in The Marx-Engels Reader, (New York: W.W. Norton & Company,
1978), 319-322.
69
reification. According to the theory of reification, humans can easily be commodified. 93
People see themselves as intricately connected with objects. There are a set of
characteristics that are applied to people and that people apply to themselves, based
solely on what they purchase. For example, it means something to be an Apple person.
To be an Apple person instead of a PC person is to be a cooler computer user or to be
on the cutting edge of technology. People identify with and buy into the Apple ideal and
concept of a person, instead of choosing an Apple product because of its platform.
When one purchases an Apple product, they are buying into the idea of Apple, not the
operating system.
For human trafficking it is a short step from connecting to an object and using
that object to describe themselves to becoming an object. If a person sees themselves
as an object, they are more likely to be willing to sell themselves as a commodity. Also,
wage labor rents us as people would rent a commodity. A laborer sells his time and the
capitalist effectively rents that time from the laborer. A victim of human trafficking is just
selling their time to a renter of their physical body.
If the particular person cannot stand to sell themselves, they can be exploited by
others. In many countries where people are trafficked inside the borders, it is often
because economic reasons have separated the people, so they do not see the victim of
human trafficking as a human being. Just as in France after the French Revolution, the
93
Lukacs, Georg, “Reification and the Consciousness of the Proletariat”.
70
bourgeoisie pits the rural and urban proletariat against each other. 94 Many victims of
human trafficking come from rural areas of the countries, such as Australian Aboriginal
Coast area and the rural areas of Russia, such as Pskov region. 95 Throughout Russian
society, Russians see a difference between the urban citizens, who fall mainly into the
proletarian class and the generally poorer citizens of the rural areas, who could be
classified as a different kind of proletariat by the Russian citizens. In Australia, there has
been a long history of conflict between the native Aboriginal people and the European
settlers. Even though the economic situation of the proletariat in Australia and the
Aboriginal people may be the same, the white, urban proletariat sees themselves as
separate from the Aboriginal people. 96 This perceived difference contributes to an
indifference and acceptance of human trafficking in some parts of the world.
Politically, there are policies in place by most countries to attempt to stem human
trafficking. However, these policies do not see human trafficking the same as legal
industries. Legal industries and human trafficking networks share many similar
characteristics. One of which is that the actual production produces its form of
consumption. 97 Human trafficking is produced illegally, therefore it is consumed illegally.
Laws that attempt to stop the consumption or production of human trafficking fail
to realize that production, distribution, exchange, and consumption are all moments of
94
Marx, Karl, “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte” in The Marx-Engels Reader, (New
York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1978), 606-611.
95
U.S. State Department’s Report on Trafficking in Persons, 2013.
96
Ibid.
97
Marx, Karl, “The Grundrisse” in The Marx-Engels Reader, (New York: W.W. Norton &
Company, 1978), 221-294.
71
one organic whole. 98 If there is a victim of human trafficking that is being consumed, it is
inevitable that the victim has also been produced, distributed, and exchanged for the
purpose of being consumed. Human trafficking would not be produced if there was no
immediate distribution, exchange, or consumption of it. Therefore, any policy would
need to address all steps that produce the organic whole in order to create change.
Conclusion
Marxist Feminism can explain human trafficking through the analysis of
economics first and gender second. The amount of source trafficking can be predicted
through the combination of the percent of people under poverty, the Gini Coefficient,
and the Human Development Index ranking. Although some countries may have a
certain high or low variable, it is the combination of these that is essential in order for an
underground, illegal industry such as human trafficking to grow and be a viable
alternative. In addition to having those economic indicators, it is also essential for the
country to have a certain level on the Gender Inequality Index and a lack of women in
the workforce. By not allowing women in the workforce, it forces them to seek
employment in other, illegal markets.
98
Ibid.
72
Works Cited
CIA. 2013. CIA World Factbook. Accessed February 7, 2014.
http://www.ciaworldfactbook.gov.
Department, US State. 2013. "Human Trafficking in Persons."
Do Something. 2012. Background on Human Trafficking. Accessed January 17, 2014.
https://www.dosomething.org/tipsandtools/background-human-trafficking.
Marx, Karl. 1978. "Capital." In The Marx-Engels Reader, 331-390. New York: W.W.
Norton & Company.
Marx, Karl. 1978. "The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte." In The Marx-Engels
Reader, 606-611. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Marx, Karl. 1978. "The Grundrisse." In The Marx-Engels Reader, 221-294. New York:
W.W. Norton & Company.
Marx, Karl. 1978. "Wage, Labor, and Capital." In The Marx-Engels Reader, 203. New
York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Tong, Rosemarie. 1989. Feminist Thought: A Comprehensive Introduction. Boulder:
Westview Press.
73
When Hollywood Went to War
Emily Teachout
Abstract: During World War II, Hollywood experienced a major transformation as
people began to recognize that cinema could become an essential tool for the war.
Three films in particular became popular, and some even controversial, which only
furthered their support for the war effort: The Great Dictator, Casablanca, and Mrs.
Miniver. These three films portrayed the other side of the war, the side that seemed
more important and relatable for the average American civilian. More importantly, the
directors of these films, Charles Chaplin, Michael Curtiz, and William Wyler, used their
status to reflect their strong opinions on the screen by creating some of the most
important non-combat World War II films that gave hope to American civilians and
helped them understand the complexity of war.
In a small, popular, American café in Northern Africa, two men are having a
conversation in an upstairs office. While they are talking, a group of Nazis downstairs in
the cafe begin singing the song “Die Wacht am Rhein” with pride and vigor. Though
some people enjoy this display of devotion toward Germany, most people at the café
are enraged. One of the men in the office, a Czechoslovakian, hears the singing and
furiously rushes down to the band. He looks at the musicians with determination and
urges them, “Play ‘La Marseillaise.’ Play it.” The members of the band glance over to
the owner with tentative eyes, waiting for an indication of his permission. Finally, the
owner nods his approval and the band members pick up their instruments and begin to
play the French national anthem. Instantly, people stand up with patriotic fervor while
other musicians join in and everyone begins singing. Across the room the Nazis try to
74
fight back with their singing, but vanquished, they turn away as “La Marseillaise” keeps
playing louder. Once the song ends, people cheer and applaud while a woman yells,
“Vive la France!” 99
This is one of the most famous scenes from the 1943 film Casablanca, a movie
that has stood the test of time and has become even more popular today. When this film
came out, Hollywood was experiencing a major transformation and World War II
triggered this change. People started to recognize that cinema could become an
essential tool for the war. A large majority of Hollywood movies created during the late
1930s and early to mid-1940s carried a propaganda undertone. This is due to the fact
that World War II was the first war so intricately connected to film. 100 Even though silent
movies were popular during World War I, these pictures were never as dramatic and
poignant as those released during World War II. In fact, one can certainly argue that
cinema affected how people viewed and reacted to war.
Films about the European theater that openly depicted the reality of war were the
most essential films for the home front. However, these movies were typically not
combat films. This was because combat films released during the war were unrealistic
due to censorship and production codes. Pictures not depicting combat tended to be the
most uplifting, realistic, and beneficial for war audiences.
99
Casablanca. DVD. Directed by Michael Curtiz. (Burbank: MGM Home Video, 1943).
Thomas Patrick Doherty. Projections of War: Hollywood, American Culture, and World War II.
(New
York: Columbia University Press, 1993), 6.
100
75
Three films in particular became popular, and some even controversial, which
only furthered their support for the war effort: The Great Dictator, Casablanca, and Mrs.
Miniver. Since these movies are non-combat films, they portray the other side of the
war, the side that seemed more important and relatable for the average American
civilian. Mrs. Miniver depicts the struggles of average citizens, which helped moviegoers
recognize that other people all across the globe were going through the same
tribulations. The Great Dictator took on a propaganda connotation by urging people to
show off their patriotism and fight for a just cause. Chaplin’s inspiring speech at the end
of The Great Dictator effortlessly captured the attention of audiences. Casablanca
grasped the typical citizen’s issues regarding confinement and isolation, becoming an
essential film for people trying to understand the war in all of its complexities.
These films would not have existed had it not been for the creative minds behind
them. Many well-known directors ignored the idea of escapist cinema and stepped
behind to the camera to create realistic films about the complications of war. Three
directors in particular, Charles Chaplin, Michael Curtiz, and William Wyler, used their
status to reflect their strong opinions on the screen by creating some of the most
important non-combat World War II films that gave hope to American civilians and
helped them understand the complexity of war.
Hollywood’s War
World War II was unlike any war that came before because it was closely
connected to the media. This was the first war to affect certain areas of American life
76
that other wars never touched, such as Hollywood. Actors, actresses, directors, and
producers were all touched by the war. Directors such as Frank Capra, John Ford, John
Huston, and William Wyler all contributed in one way or another to the war. 101 For
example, George Stevens, celebrated for many critically acclaimed films such as A
Place in the Sun, Giant, and Swing Time, served in the U.S. Army Signal Corps under
General Eisenhower from 1943-1946. While in Europe, Stevens shot footage of D-Day,
the liberation of Paris, the meeting of American and Soviet forces at the Elbe River, and
the Dachau concentration camp. 102
Unlike any other previous war, this one infiltrated its way into the executive ranks
of Hollywood. For example, Spyros Skouras, the president of 20th Century Fox,
discovered that Nazis had executed his nephew in Greece. The previous RKO Pictures
president and chairman of the War Activities Committee of the Motion Picture Industry,
George K. Schafer, had a son who lost his life during the Normandy invasion. Joseph
Breen of the Production Code Administration had three sons who fought overseas, two
of whom were seriously injured in the same week. 103
One of the more significant examples deals with the two men behind Warner
Brothers Films. Jack and Harry Warner became entangled in the war because of their
hatred for the Nazi party. The Warners were Polish American Jews who came to
101
Ibid, 14.
"2008 Entries to National Film Registry Announced - News Releases (Library of Congress)."
Library of Congress Home.
103
Doherty, Projections of War, 14.
102
77
America as children to escape an anti-Semitic pogrom. 104 Their background made them
especially sensitive to the horror stories coming from Germany regarding Nazi antiJewish policies. One event that caught Jack and Harry’s attention was when the Warner
Brothers representative in Berlin, Joe Kauffman, was beaten to death by a group of Nazi
storm troopers in 1936. Jack stated:
Like many another outnumbered Jew, he was trapped in an alley. They hit
him with fists and clubs, and kicked the life out of him with their boots, and
left him lying there. I immediately closed our offices and exchanges in
Germany, for I knew that terror was creeping across the country. 105
This event, as well as the fact that the Warners themselves were Polish
American Jews, influenced the way the studio chose to handle the war in the films they
released. The Warners focused their attention on exposing the impending danger of the
Nazi party and Adolf Hitler by releasing films like Confessions of a Nazi Spy, All
Through the Night, and Casablanca. These were films that attempted to inform
Americans about the Nazi menace.
It was during the beginning phase of the war when the Office of War Information
(OWI), the agency responsible for government propaganda, and Hollywood began
working together. 106 Elmer Davis, the director of the OWI, believed that “the easiest way
to inject a propaganda idea into most people’s minds is to let it go through the medium
104
Michael E. Birdwell. Celluloid Soldiers the Warner Bros. Campaign Against Nazism. (New
York: New York University Press, 1999), 5.
105
Ibid, 7.
106
Clayton R. Koppes, and Gregory D. Black. "What to Show the World: The Office of War
Information and Hollywood, 1942-1945." The Journal of American History 64, no. 1 (1977): 87105. jstor.org. 87.
78
of an entertainment picture when they do not realize that they are being
propagandized.”107 He also referred to film as “the most important instrument of
propaganda in the world.” 108 President Franklin D. Roosevelt was a strong supporter of
this, believing that radio and film could be the most effective ways of communicating
with the American people. Roosevelt proved to be correct. Every year during the war,
Hollywood produced about five hundred films, exceeding the influence of American
radio, and gaining international appreciation. 109
Some directors and production studios, like Warner Brothers, did not need to be
persuaded by government offices or production studios to use film to fight the war.
Many filmmakers willingly made anti-Nazi or pro-war films. The reverberations felt by
Hollywood because of the war and the willingness of directors to create war films is
crucial when discussing how films helped average Americans understand the war. What
Hollywood executives and directors released to the public were personal messages to
Americans. The movie industry was perhaps the easiest way to reach out to the public,
and the participation of filmmakers and actors in the war was one of the best ways to
convince Americans that Hollywood had all of the answers. Thomas Doherty argues in
his book Projections of War, “The motion picture industry achieved an ascendancy in
American culture it was never again to recapture – a popular and prestigious art, a
respected and cultivated business, an acknowledged and powerful weapon of war.” 110
107
Ibid, 88.
Ibid, 89.
109
Ibid.
110
Doherty, Projections of War, 13-14.
108
79
Because of the contribution of so many opinionated and talented directors, Hollywood
certainly became the perfect weapon of war.
Charlie Chaplin
One of the most recognized actors in Hollywood during the first half of the 20th
century was Charles Chaplin. Ever since 1914, Chaplin had been involved in the film
industry. During the silent era, he revolutionized cinema, eventually becoming one of
the most renowned and imaginative silent film artists. Not only was he an actor, but he
also directed, produced, wrote, and created the music for the majority of his films. All
the way up to the mid-1930s, Chaplin was still making silent films, but his masterpiece
from 1936, Modern Times, would be his final silent film and one of the last times
audiences would see Chaplin as his classic “tramp” character. Chaplin’s first talking
picture came out in 1941 and was called The Great Dictator. This film would become
controversial for Chaplin’s comic portrayal of a malicious dictator, who seemed almost
too familiar to audiences around the world.
The Great Dictator (1940)
“Pessimists say I may fail – that dictators aren’t funny any more, that the evil is
too serious. That is wrong. If there is one thing I know it is that power can always be
made ridiculous. The bigger that fellow gets, the harder my laughter will hit him.” 111 –
Charlie Chaplin
111
Robert Van Gelder, “Chaplin Draws a Keen Weapon,” (New York Times, September 8,
1940).
80
By 1940, World War II was still only in its beginning phase. Hitler had already
conquered Poland, the allies had declared war, anti-Semitism was rapidly increasing in
Germany and throughout occupied Europe, and France was about to fall to the
Germans. As the war intensified, so did the sentiments of many Hollywood directors,
actors, and producers. Charles Chaplin was just one of the many influential figures in
Hollywood who decided to take a stand against the Nazis and create a film that would
cause a stir all over the world.
During the late 1930s, Chaplin wanted to write a new film for his then wife
Paulette Goddard, who had previously worked with him in Modern Times. However,
Chaplin was struggling with this new project. He did not believe he could write a
romantic or lighthearted film while Hitler was rising to power and thus experienced
complications while creating a story similar to his old films. Luckily, his good friend
Alexander Korda, a Hungarian film director, recommended that Chaplin produce a film
about Hitler. One of Korda’s main reasons was because Chaplin’s “tramp” character
looked unusually similar to Hitler, particularly the moustache. Chaplin found this an
interesting idea and strongly considered it. 112
Korda’s suggestion, however, was not the only proposal that got Chaplin thinking
about a Hitler movie. The most essential news that influenced him to make a film about
Hitler was the information he received from his friend Cornelius Vanderbilt, a journalist
who belonged to one of the wealthiest families in America. While in Germany,
112
Charles Chaplin, Charles Chaplin: My Autobiography, (New York: Simon and Schuster,
1964), 392.
81
Vanderbilt created a documentary-style film to warn about the impending threat posed
by Adolf Hitler. In this movie, Vanderbilt visited the graves of Hitler’s parents and
traveled to Leonding, a place where Hitler spent many years of his youth, to investigate
peoples’ opinions of Hitler. Vanderbilt claimed that Hitler was ruling by a “reign of terror”
through “spies, skulking figures, and threatening voices.” 113 Not only did Vanderbilt visit
places from Hitler’s youth, but he also was able to get into a concentration camp. While
inside the camp, Vanderbilt noted the Nazi brutality that took place there. At the time,
this was not widely known to the public; therefore many people refused to believe him.
Chaplin, however, did believe him.
During their meeting, Chaplin looked at a postcard Vanderbilt obtained while in
Germany. The card depicted Hitler giving a speech. Chaplin stated, “the face was
obscenely comic – a bad imitation of me, with its absurd moustache, unruly, stringy hair
and disgusting, thin little mouth. I could not take Hitler seriously.” He then described
Hitler’s posture on the postcards:
One with his hands claw-like haranguing the crowds, another with one arm up
and the other down like a cricketer about to bowl, and another with hands
clenched in front of him as though lifting an imaginary dumb-bell. The salute with
the hand thrown back over the shoulder, the palm upward, made me want to put
a tray of dirty dishes on it. ‘This is a nut!’ I thought. But when Einstein and
Thomas Mann were forced to leave Germany, this face of Hitler was no longer
comic but sinister. 114
113
114
Mordaunt Hall. “The Brown Shirts,” (New York Times, May 1, 1934). 26.
Chaplin, My Autobiography, 320
82
One final event finally convinced Chaplin that it was time to create his anti-Hitler
film. This decision came from a viewing of German propaganda filmmaker Leni
Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will. Chaplin viewed the propaganda film, thanks to the
Museum of Modern Art in New York City, which had a copy of Riefenstahl’s film.
Chaplin saw it with René Clair, a French film director, and the two had completely
different responses. 115 Luis Buñuel, the curator at the museum, recalled their reactions,
saying that René Clair was “horrified by the effectiveness” while Chaplin “laughed like a
crazy man.” He apparently watched the film several more times and used it as the main
inspiration for his body language as the dictator. 116
After these three incidents, Chaplin decided to take action and make the film, but
this process was not smooth for the experienced director. During the filming, the United
Artists production company sent Chaplin numerous “alarming” messages. The Hays
Office, an administration that was in charge of production codes and censorship,
recommended that Chaplin cut production and not make the film because they knew
there would be censorship problems. Both Charles Lindbergh and Joseph Kennedy
voiced their opposition as well, believing that the Nazi party promised a bright future for
Europe. 117 Even the English office was not too keen on accepting the release of an antiHitler picture, especially in Britain. But Chaplin simply ignored these warnings. In his
autobiography he wrote, “I was determined to go ahead, for Hitler must be laughed at…I
115
Jürgen Trimborn, Leni Riefenstahl: A Life, (New York: Faber and Faber Inc. 2007). 24.
Ibid, 25.
117
Nick Clooney, The Movies That Changed Us: Reflections on the Screen. (New York: Atria
Books, 2002). 186.
116
83
was determined to ridicule their mystic bilge about a pure blood race.” 118 Chaplin later
stated, however, that if he knew of the real horrors occurring in Germany he would
never had made the film. 119
As more letters poured in urging Chaplin to scrap his project, including hostile
letters threatening violence against him, he continued, determined to make a statement
against the Nazis. Not much later, Great Britain declared war on Germany. Then there
was news on Dunkirk, the fall of France, and the disintegration of the Maginot Line.
Instead of receiving letters opposing the film, Chaplin began receiving letters, especially
from the New York Office, urging him to hurry up with his movie. 120
The film was completed in 1940, but Chaplin’s anxiety was just beginning. He
was particularly concerned about the movie’s premiere in New York. The threatening
letters he received warned him of riots and other forms of violence because of the antiNazi message in the film. Chaplin consulted his friend Harry Bridges who told him that
there would be plenty of anti-Nazis in the crowd to defend him. He also told Chaplin,
“When the cause is justified, you don’t have to persuade people; all you have to tell
them is the facts, then they decide for themselves.” 121 Later that same year, The Great
Dictator was booked to premiere at the Astor and the Capitol Theaters in New York City.
When the film was shown at the Astor, Harry Hopkins, Roosevelt’s chief advisor, was
present and invited Chaplin to dine with him later that night. According to Chaplin,
118
Chaplin, My Autobiography, 392.
Ibid, 393.
120
Ibid.
121
Ibid, 397.
119
84
Hopkins said to him, “It’s a great picture…a very worthwhile thing to do, but it hasn’t a
chance. It will lose money.” Chaplin later wrote in his autobiography, “Thank God
Hopkins was wrong.”122
Popularity soared when The Great Dictator premiered at the Capitol to a
“glamorous audience who were elated and enthused.”123 For fifteen weeks it played in
two theaters and ended up being Chaplin’s highest grossing picture ever. 124 Audiences
were passionate about the film, demonstrating their approval with laughter and
applause. 125 However, critical reviews were generally mixed, mainly about the final
speech in the movie since it changed the entire tone. While the film was mainly
comedic, with occasional serious moments, the final speech was propagandist,
emotional, and inspiring, which seemed out of character for a Chaplin film. Nonetheless,
the speech became one of the most popular aspects of the film and had a profound
effect on many people. Archie L. Mayo, who according to Chaplin was “one of the most
important directors in Hollywood,” asked Chaplin if he could print the speech, which he
compared to the Gettysburg Address, onto his Christmas card. On the card, Mayo
wrote, “Today we face new crises, and another man spoke from the depth of an earnest
and sincere heart. Although I know him but slightly, what he says has moved me
122
Ibid, 398.
Ibid.
124
Ibid, 399.
125
Kathleen McLaughlin. "German Fans See Chaplin's Satire," (New York Times 10 Aug. 1946),
16.
123
85
deeply…I am inspired to send you the full text of the speech written by Charles Chaplin
so that you, too, may share the expression of hope.” 126
In March of 1941, the magazine World Affairs published Chaplin’s entire speech
“in response to requests.” The following is the majority of the speech given by Chaplin:
We all want to help one another. Human beings are like that. We want to live by each
other’s happiness – not by each other’s misery. We don’t want to hate and despise one another.
In this world there is room for everyone. And the good earth is rich and can provide for everyone.
The way of life can be free and beautiful but we have lost the way.
Greed has poisoned men’s souls, has barricaded the world with hate, has goose-stepped
us into misery and bloodshed…Our knowledge has made us cynical. Our cleverness, hard and
unkind. We think too much and feel too little…More than cleverness we need kindness and
gentleness. Without these qualities, life will be violence and all will be lost.
To those who can hear me, I say – do not despair. The misery that is upon us is but the
passing of greed – the bitterness of men who fear the way of human progress. The hate of men
will pass, and dictators die, and the power they took from the people will return to the people.
And so long as men die, liberty will never perish…
In the 17th Chapter of Luke it is written: ‘The Kingdom of God is within man’ – not one
man, nor a group of men, but all men! In you! You, the people have the power – the power…to
create happiness! You the people have the power to make this life free and beautiful, to make
this life a wonderful adventure.
Then – in the name of democracy – let us use that power – let us all unite. Let us fight for
a new world – a decent world that will give men a chance to work – that will give youth a future
and old age a security. By the promise of these things, brutes have risen to power. But they lie!
They do not fulfill that promise. They never will!
Dictators free themselves, but they enslave the people! Now let us fight to fulfill that
promise! Let us fight to free the world – to do away with national barriers – to do away with
greed, with hate, and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where sciences and
progress will lead to all men’s happiness. Soldiers! In the name of democracy, let us all unite!
Wherever you are, look up…the clouds are lifting! The sun is breaking through! We are
coming out of the darkness into the light! We are coming into a new world – a kindlier world,
where men will rise above their greed, their hate and their brutality…The soul of man has been
given wings and at last he is beginning to fly. He is flying into the rainbow – into the light of hope
– to you – to me – and to all of us! 127
126
127
Chaplin, My Autobiography, 399.
“Chaplin’s Dictator Speech,” World Affairs, Vol. 104, No. 1 (March 1941) pp. 36-37.
86
It is obvious how powerful this speech was for audiences in 1940. Chaplin
clearly tried to relay a specific message to Americans and address the issues that many
people experienced during the war. He concentrated on the struggle average citizens
experienced while living under a dictator and exclaimed that when a tyrant comes to
power, he only frees himself while putting his citizens in chains. However, Chaplin
reassured the audience that just as experiences come and go, dictators come and go.
Everyone’s time on earth ends and luckily for the people experiencing the pain of living
under oppression, the time will come from them to gain back their power. Chaplin
believed that the people should be in charge of the government and that they should be
the ones to rule. He even added the passage from the Bible stating that God’s Kingdom
is not just within a ruler or within certain people – it is in every person. Chaplin told this
to the audience because he wanted people to understand that they have the power to
create happiness and make life free and exciting for everyone. Throughout the entire
speech, Chaplin also encouraged the people to stand up and fight. He commanded that
everyone unite “in the name of democracy” and fight against authoritarian governments.
Chaplin ended the speech giving confidence to the audience by telling them to look up
and see the brightness in the current situation. He assured them that this horrible phase
in history will pass and a new world will rise where people will move past greed and
hate.
During 1940, the film was viewed as inspiring and reassuring because of this
speech, especially in America where the film was embraced. Roosevelt was so
87
impressed by the film, especially the concluding speech, that he asked Chaplin to recite
the speech at the Hall of the Daughters of the American Revolution in Washington in
front of an audience. The speech was also recorded for the radio. Even Herbert Hoover
took notice of Chaplin’s anti-Nazi sentiments. Hoover invited him to lunch one day and
expressed his desire to have Chaplin do something about the terrible conditions in
Europe. Hoover viewed Chaplin as the perfect humanitarian for the job – someone who
would want to lend a helping hand. Hoover, however, still needed approval from
Washington. He told Chaplin, “Washington needs urging by public demand and support
of well-known public figures…I think you as a humanitarian will endorse such a
commission.” Naturally, Chaplin gladly agreed to help. 128 He was also asked quite often
to give uplifting and motivational speeches about the war. 129 Chaplin was even invited to
speak at a meeting in Madison Square, which was eventually published by the Council
of the Congress of Industrial Organizations. 130
Within years to come, other filmmakers tried to do exactly what Chaplin did in
The Great Dictator. A perfect example is Ernst Lubitsch’s 1942 film To Be or Not To Be,
a film that openly satirized Hitler and Nazi Germany. Though this film is considered a
classic comedy today, it was looked down on in 1942. This demonstrates how
successful and accomplished Chaplin was. He took advantage of the timing and his
knowledge about Nazi Germany and used his power and status to create a powerful film
that would gain the world’s attention and give the people the hope they needed.
128
Chaplin, My Autobiography, 403-404.
Ibid, 407
130
Ibid, 409
129
88
After the war, it was discovered that Hitler had made a list of enemies he wanted
exterminated once he defeated the allies. Chaplin had apparently made the top ten. 131
This reveals how effective Chaplin was as he tried to give hope to the world by assuring
them that Hitler would eventually be defeated. He was so successful that out of all the
politically influential and powerful people in the world, Hitler wanted him dead.
Michael Curtiz
Though he is not as well known as directors like George Stevens or Billy Wilder,
Michael Curtiz was still a very accomplished director, bringing to the screen popular
films such as White Christmas, Yankee Doodle Dandy, and Mildred Pierce. However,
not too much is known about his life. There are not many biographies written about him
nor did he write an autobiography. Curtiz was very private and never wanted his life
publicized. Yet, there are some things that can be said for certain.
Curtiz was born in the l890s as Mihaly Kaminer. During his childhood, he grew up
in a family of orthodox Jews in a crowded Jewish neighborhood in Budapest, Hungary,
which became a thriving cultural and financial city due to the contribution of Jews. 132 In
1912, Curtiz began his career in film in Hungary, but in 1919, he fled from his beloved
country due to anti-Semitic counter-revolutionary forces. 133 Eventually Curtiz moved to
131
Clooney, The Movies That Changed Us, 190.
Kati Marton. The Great Escape: Nine Jews Who Fled Hitler and Changed the World. (New
York: Simon & Schuster,
2006).16, 20.
133
James C Robertson. The Casablanca Man: The Cinema of Michael Curtiz. (London:
Routledge, 1993). 11. ; Aljean Harmetz. The Making of Casablanca: Bogart, Bergman, and
World War II. (New York: Hyperion, 2002). 185.
132
89
Austria, and then to American in 1926 when he signed a contract with Warner
Brothers. 134
During the 1930s, Curtiz’s American career rapidly grew, but so had Hitler’s
conquest of Europe. By 1939, Hitler occupied all of Austria, seized Czechoslovakia, and
conducted the pogrom against Jews during Kristallnacht. These events caused the
Warner brothers to speak up through the films they released. Since Curtiz was making
films under the Warner Brothers contract, he had no choice but to go along. However,
Curtiz was not opposed to this anti-Nazi policy in the studio. In fact, he was pleased to
support it. 135 Curtiz still had family living in Hungary who were targeted because of their
Jewish heritage. Luckily, he managed to get his mother safely to American in 1938 and
his brothers to Mexico. His sister, however, was sent to Auschwitz. She survived, but
her husband and three children were among the many who died. 136
As Hitler became the conqueror of almost all of Europe, Curtiz directed more
anti-Nazi films, and did not do much to hide his opinions. One example comes from his
movie, Santa Fe Trail, in which the character of John Brown is supposed to represent
Hitler. Film historians have studied it carefully and relate it more closely to 1940s
America than 1850s America, which is when it is supposed to take place. He also
directed a film called The Sea Wolf, which plays out like an allegory of Germany’s war
with the British. Edward G. Robinson, who acts as the main character, stated in his
134
Marton, The Great Escape, 57.
Robertson, The Casablanca Man, 49.
136
Harmetz, The Making of Casablanca, 185.
135
90
autobiography that his character was actually supposed to be a Nazi. 137 During the
1930s, Curtiz’s films with anti-Nazi undertones were very prominent. But in the 1940s,
he shifted his films to revolve more around American patriotism. 138
Casablanca (1942)
“I am sometimes overcome by a feeling that I am living – not surrounded by
American mansions – but gazing at the hour hand of the clock at the New York Café,
through the mist, at dawn.” – Michael Curtiz
Michael Curtiz wrote this in a letter to a close friend who was living in Budapest in
1960. Twenty years before, Curtiz had directed one of the most popular films to ever be
made, Casablanca. The New York Café in Budapest was a place where Curtiz loved to
go and write while he was beginning his film career. His love for this café never
diminished and was the inspiration for Rick’s Café in his celebrated film. Even though
the film takes place in Africa nearly thirty years after Curtiz left Budapest, everything in
the film resembles his beloved native city. 139 From the café itself, to the atmosphere
outside of it, Curtiz used this nostalgia to create a film that would explain to audiences
why the world was at war by creating a personal connection between the film and its
viewers.
Casablanca is possibly one of the most well-known, celebrated films of all time,
and can be found on numerous “Greatest Movies Ever” lists. It is also recognized for its
137
Robertson, The Casablanca Man, 148.
Ibid, 58.
139
Marton, The Great Escape, 15.
138
91
quotes such as “We’ll always have Paris,” “Here’s looking at you, kid,” and “Round up
the usual suspects.” What many people today do not realize, however, is how important
the film was during World War II. It is a love story, an adventure tale, and even a thriller.
It stood in a class of its own and helped explain the war to average citizens who could
not understand America’s intervention in Europe. It was a movie that was able to clarify
to Americans why they were fighting after being isolationist for such a long period of
time. And what is more, it connected to audiences on a deeper level, something that
many other films about World War II did not do. 140
Casablanca started out as a play titled “Everybody Come to Rick’s” and did not
catch the attention of Warner Brothers Studio until after Pearl Harbor. 141 Originally, the
film was never supposed to be popular or have such a large future. 142 It was actually
supposed to be a B-movie, a short film that was shown at theaters before the feature
film. 143 In fact, Casablanca is commonly known for being an accidental masterpiece.
What started out as a chaotic and unorganized script turned into a film that would win
three out of the eight Oscars for which it was nominated: Best Picture, Best Director,
and Best Screenplay. 144 A large deal of this can be attributed to Michael Curtiz. When
he got his hands on the script, he made a great deal of changes, one of them being the
war element in the film. He believed that it should be emphasized to a greater extent
140
Jack Nachbar. "Casablanca and the Home Front." Journal of Popular Film & Television Vol.
24.4 (2000): 5-11.
141
Harmetz, The Making of Casablanca, 16.
142
Howard Koch, and Julius Epstein, Casablanca: Script and Legend. (Woodstock: Overlook
Press, 1992). 14.
143
Ibid, 9.
144
Gary Green, “’The Happiest of Accidents?’ A Reevaluation of ‘Casablanca.’” Smithsonian
Studies in American Art Vol. 1.2 (1987): 2-13.
92
than it originally was and that the evil of the Nazis and Vichy France should be made
more prominent. 145 Curtiz even interviewed many refugees from Nazi occupied
countries and merged their escape stories into the film. 146
The film centers on Rick Blaine, an American man living in Casablanca who runs
his own nightclub. Later in the film, two other important characters are introduced: Victor
Laszlo and Ilsa Lund. Laszlo is a leader of the resistance movement in Czechoslovakia.
He had been imprisoned in a concentration camp for his actions but managed to
escape. In the film, he is on the run with his wife Ilsa, trying to escape to America. Ilsa
used to be an important person in Rick’s life. She and Rick had an affair in Paris, while
Laszlo was imprisoned. Everything changes for Rick when Laszlo and Ilsa show up at
Rick’s Café trying to find a way to obtain letters of transit so they can go to America.
The rest of the film focuses on the couple trying to get to America, conflicts with the
Nazis in Casablanca who want to stop Laszlo, and Rick and Ilsa’s previous love affair.
What is most important about this film is its general message. As previously
stated, Casablanca was a film that helped Americans understand the war. The ultimate
lesson of Casablanca stems from Rick’s self-sacrifice for the greater good. One can
easily compare Rick to the United States in the early 1940s. He views himself and
displays himself as an isolationist. He does not like to get involved in the affairs of other
people and especially the affairs of politics. He says twice in the film, “I stick my neck
out for nobody” and continues to live his life without interfering. But as events pick up
145
146
Ibid, 4.
Harmetz, The Making of Casablanca, 185.
93
throughout the film, Rick’s isolationist ideals dissipate. He begins to see the imminent
threat of Nazism and realizes that he cannot escape. 147
Toward the end of the film, Rick’s acceptance of involvement is apparent when
he is welcomed “back to the fight” by Laszlo and makes the ultimate sacrifice, which is
that of Ilsa. Rick and Ilsa’s love is recalled in a flashback the film, which offers insight
into the romance they once experienced in Paris before Nazi occupation. But with a
chance to rekindle an illicit love affair in Casablanca, Rick must pick between her and
aiding the war. Rick chooses to sacrifice his love for Ilsa, realizing that he can no longer
remain an isolationist and must give her up so that she and her husband Laszlo, who
was just released from a Nazi concentration camp, can continue to fight for what is right.
The film leaves Rick a noble man who decides to give up everything he loves to fight
Nazism. This idea of self-sacrifice was very popular during World War II, especially in
the 1940s as America slowly became more involved. Specific ads in the Saturday
Evening Post reflect this idea. One stated, “It becomes the patriotic duty of every
American without exception…to sacrifice without restraint.”148
Another suggestion about the film is that it is a political allegory, claiming that
Rick is President Roosevelt, Winston Churchill is Lazlo, and Casablanca stands for the
White House, since it literally does mean “white house.” Richard Corliss, a film critic for
Time Magazine said:
147
148
Nachbar, Casablanca and the Home Front, 6.
Ibid.
94
Casablanca is a political allegory, with Rick as President Roosevelt…a man
who gambles on the odds of going to war until circumstance and his own
submerged nobility force him to close his casino…and commit himself – first
by financing the Side of Right and then by fighting for it. The time of the film’s
action (December 1941) adds credence to this view, as does the irrelevant
fact that, two month after Casablanca opened, Roosevelt (Rick) and Prime
Minister Winston Churchill (Lazlo) met for a war conference in Casablanca. 149
But perhaps the most important ways Casablanca helped people understand the
war is through the use of space, smoking and drinking, and music and memory. The
majority of the film takes place within the confines of Rick’s Café Americain. The
characters in the film are stuck. No one can get out of Casablanca, so they all flock to
Rick’s. This relates to the life of the average American. By the time Casablanca was
released, Americans had to sacrifice many luxuries because of the war. Sugar, coffee,
oil, fuel, butter, cheese, bread, and many more items were all rationed. Americans were
also trapped. No longer could they hop in their car and go on relaxing Sunday drives or
take vacations. America was different and no longer felt like a land of freedom. 150
One element that is unambiguous during this film is the amount of smoking and
drinking in which the characters partake. During the war years, it has been estimated
that smoking and drinking dramatically increased. Starting in 1940, the sale of beer
increased about fifty percent. 151 A spokesperson in the industry actually stated that this
149
Richard Raskin. "’Casablanca’ and United State Foreign Policy." Film History Vol. 4.2 (1990):
153-164, 157
150
Nachbar, Casablanca and the Home Front, 10.
151
John C. Burnham, Bad Habits: Drinking, Smoking, Taking Drugs, Gambling, Sexual
Misbehavior, and Swearing in
American History. (New York: New York University Press,
1993). 71.
95
was a chance to “cultivate a taste for beer in millions of young men who will eventually
constitute the largest beer-consuming section of our population.”152 Not only was
drinking an issue, but the percentage of smokers in America also dramatically increased
during the war. Even women were drinking and smoking more often. 153 A quote from the
movie certainly backs up this theory. Major Strasser asks Rick what his nationality is
and Rick responds, “I’m a drunkard.” To that, Captain Renault states, “That makes Rick
a citizen of the world.” 154 This quote perfectly reflects the wave of alcoholism spreading
not just in America but also throughout the entire world.
In the film, this element is quite obvious. In fact, the first time the audience is
introduced to Rick, he is smoking a cigarette with a drink in his hand. Even the café is
foggy from all of the smoke drifting around the room. According to Casablanca and the
Home Front by Jack Nachbar, the characters smoke thirty-one times and drink twentyone drinks. People watching this film would have understood this habit, as they too were
most likely participating in more drinking and smoking at home. 155
Finally, the music plays a major role in the picture. Casablanca made famous the
song “As Time Goes By.” This melody is played several times in the film and represents
the lost love between Rick and Ilsa. It reminds both of them of the love they could have
152
Ibid, 70.
Ibid, 101.
154
Casablanca, DVD
155
Nachbar, Casablanca and the Home Front, 9.
153
96
shared. For members in the audience, this song, and many other popular songs during
the war years, would have reminded them of their lost loves who were far away. 156
A perfect example from the movie that illustrates this connection between music
and memories is when Rick and Ilsa are in Paris, living happily before Nazi occupation.
“As Time Goes By” triggers Rick’s flashback (with lyrics that start with the words: “You
must remember this”), which takes him back to happier days. In these scenes Rick and
Ilsa are smiling, laughing, and dancing. Once the Germans march into Paris, however,
the mood quickly changes. No longer can Rick and Ilsa remain happy and ignorant to
what is happening around them. Ilsa sums up the feelings of so many average
American civilians when she says to Rick, “I love you so much and I hate this war so
much.” People could easily share this opinion with her. 157
When the film first premiered, it was a major event in Manhattan. A celebration
took place, in union with the Free French Organization and Fighting French Relief
Committee, which both took advantage of the premiere to publicize their cause. 158 Aside
from the glitz and glamour of the celebrities who attended the premiere, there were also
Foreign Legionnaires and veterans from the battles in North Africa. 159 Even the French
Flag was raised in midtown Manhattan. 160
Casablanca did extremely well upon its release. It grossed more than three
million dollars, which was outstanding for 1940s standards, and made Humphrey Bogart
156
Ibid, 11.
Ibid, 13.
158
Harlan Lebo. Casablanca: Behind the Scenes. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992), 188.
159
Ibid, 188-189.
160
Ibid, 189.
157
97
and Ingrid Bergman overnight celebrities. 161 It opened near the end of November 1942
at a coincidentally perfect time: only a few weeks following the allied landing in North
Africa. According to Warner, when it was previewed before release, the “audience
reaction was beyond belief. From main title to end was applause and anxiety.” 162 When
it was released nation wide, audiences were enthralled. According to reporters at
theaters, people stood up and applauded after Paul Henried’s character Laszlo led the
singing of “La Marseillaise.” Audiences in New York were passionate about one scene
in particular. Major Strasser asks Rick if he could ever foresee a Nazi attack on New
York to which Rick responds, “Well, there are certain sections of New York, Major, that I
wouldn’t advise you to invade.” Reporters stated that viewers in the city applauded their
approval of Rick’s comment. This film truly sparked patriotic fervor in audiences around
America becoming not just film that was viewed for entertainment, but a film that was
viewed to remind Americans why the war was so important. 163
“We’ll always have Paris” – one of the most quoted phrases in film history, and
one of the most well known quotes from the film – sums up the entirety of the film’s
message. Rick says this to Ilsa at the end of the film during one of the most famous
camera shots in film history: a close-up on the two of them gazing into each other’s
eyes. This message he says to her insinuates that there is nothing to worry about. Paris
will always be around because it is never going to go anywhere. The Nazis may have
taken over the beloved city that sparked their romance, but those fighting against the
161
Ibid, 196.
Ibid, 188.
163
Ibid, 190.
162
98
Nazis would win it back and it would be there again, ready to ignite another romance.
This film created a bond with people. It was a film that many people could understand
because they could feel the confinement the characters felt. They could understand the
struggle of sacrificing something or someone they loved for the “greater good.” They
could feel the emotions pouring out of “As Times Goes By,” a song representing the old
way of life, when everything was perfect. Though there is not much personal information
about Michael Curtiz’s life, it is certain that because of his heritage, his patriotic films
became his way of speaking out against Nazis, especially in Casablanca.
William Wyler
William Wyler was known for expressing his beliefs and doing what he wanted.
This self-expression only helped him soar to the top of his profession. He was always
willing to put his reputation on the line and because of this, his films demonstrated his
politics and personal beliefs. During the 1940s, Wyler’s personal connections with World
War II came to the forefront. These links help explain why he took such a deep interest
in creating pictures about World War II.
Wyler was born in 1902 and grew up in Mulhouse, a town in Alsace-Lorraine. As
a child, he experienced the horrors of the First World War, bearing witness to death and
destruction. As anti-Semitism in the area grew stronger, Wyler’s family knew that it
would soon be under attack because of its Jewish background. For this reason, Wyler
99
was sent to New York in 1920. During his early years in America, he launched his film
career and by the 1930s, he had already established a name for himself. 164
In 1935, he and his wife traveled to Europe on their honeymoon, which Wyler
saw as an opportunity to check on his relatives who were still living in Germany.
Knowing that they were in danger, Wyler waged a personal war against Germany as he
tried to save not only his family from persecution, but also close friends. Though his
determination was unwavering, he had a difficult time saving these twenty-five people.
For each person, he needed to petition to the state department for a visa application
and pronounce why these people were in danger and wanting to come to the United
States. At one point, Wyler simply stated about a friend: “She is in danger because she
is non-Aryan and in a concentration camp.” Wyler had to request each person as well
as sponsor them financially by paying for their travel fees, which he was more than
willing to do. He was so determined to save them that he even tried to pay the guards of
concentration camps in Vichy France as a way to keep Jewish relatives, who may have
been there, alive. Unfortunately, by 1941 Wyler had to back down as the United States
stopped accepting Jewish-Germans refugees. Though there is evidence that some
members of his family made it to Switzerland or Mexico, other members are believed to
have died.
This unfortunate trauma in Wyler’s life gave him a creative outlet. He decided to
make many political films related to the war as a way of showing his stance and
164
Sarah Kozloff. “Wyler’s Wars.” Film History, Vol. 20, no. 4 (2008): 456.
100
persuading other people to feel the same way. His most important film created during
World War II, and easily one of his finest pictures, was Mrs. Miniver.
Mrs. Miniver (1942)
[Mrs. Miniver] was perfect as propaganda…because it was a short story about a
family, about the kind of people audiences would care about.” – William Wyler 165
In 1940, the British realized how important American support could be for the
war. The attempt to influence the opinion of Americans towards Britain was supported
immediately by both the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Information. In order to gain
such support, filmmakers, writers, and broadcasters were sent to depict Britain in a
favorable manner to Americans. This strategy eventually became a success. 166 An
example of this type of film is Mrs. Miniver.
Written as a novel by Jan Struther in the late 1930s, Mrs. Miniver instantly
became popular. By 1940, the book was published in America and became a hit among
American readers. 167 By the time the novel was adapted into a film, it consequently
already had a large fan base. Its story had also intrigued Hollywood. Producer Sidney
Frankling was one of the first people in Hollywood interested in the story. He stated, “I
165
Ibid, 457.
Fred M. Leventhal “British Writers, American Readers: Women’s Voices in Wartime.” Albion:
A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies 23, no. 1 (2000): 1-18. 3.
167
Ibid.
166
101
had the notion that someone should make a tribute, a salute to England, which was
battling for its life. Suddenly, I realized that I should be that someone.” 168
Production for Mrs. Miniver, however, was not smooth. Mayer, head of MGM,
was concerned by the amount of anti-Nazi and anti-German films that were being
released in his studio. He was worried about drawing too much attention, especially
after a Senate subcommittee was looking into a “Jewish conspiracy” that was taking
place in Hollywood. A rumor circulated that those involved in the upper echelons of
Hollywood were creating anti-Nazi films to persuade Americans to participate in the war
effort and “protect British interests.”
Mayer instantly felt nervous about the idea of Mrs. Miniver, in particular about
having Wyler direct it. Wyler stated, “I was a warmonger. People say we should be
making escapist pictures today. I say, ‘Why?’ This is a hell of a time to escape from
reality. We’re in an all-out war – a people’s war – it’s time to face it.”169 Although Mayer
was on edge, he allowed the film to be created, which was a good move on his part
since the film would end up becoming box office gold, and more importantly a movie still
recognized to this day as one of the most encouraging movies about the war ever
made.
168
Michael Troyan. A Rose for Mrs. Miniver the Life of Greer Garson. (Lexington, KY: The
University Press of Kentucky,
1999), 124.
169
Ibid, 128.
102
Mrs. Miniver focuses on a “happy, careless people” living an easygoing life in a
small town in England. 170 This laidback life is portrayed several times. For example, Kay
Miniver, the title character, rushes around town to buy the hat she has had her eye on
while her husband is off trying to buy a new car for the family. In their home, maids and
servants wait on them. Kay says, “What’s the use of having money if you can’t be a little
reckless with it?”171 She also comments on how lucky she and her family are. About
fifteen minutes into the film, their son, Vin, is introduced. He is an intelligent young man,
returning on break from Oxford, who constantly comments on the unjust class system.
These opening scenes perfectly set the tone of the film, portraying the life of the family –
a life of comfort and ease without any stress. 172
This way of life changes instantly after Britain declares war on Germany. The
family finds out while they are in church and the reverend says to the parishioners that
their fore fathers fought for their country and because of this they need to keep
defending their country. He states, “We cannot and shall not fail.” 173 Immediately, the
mood of the movie changes, especially when Vin signs up to be an RAF fighter, a
decision that produces a great deal of anxiety within the film. In response, Kay says to
her husband, “I’m all mixed up, thinking of Vin. Oh you men! What a mess you’ve made
of the world! Why can’t we leave other people alone?” Clem responds, “Darling, there’s
one thing we can do – not just you and I, but all the decent men and women in the world
170
Mrs. Miniver. DVD. Directed by William Wyler. (United States: Turner Entertainment Co. and
Warner Bros. Entertainment, 1942).
171
Ibid
172
Ibid.
173
Ibid
103
– we can make sure that this thing doesn’t come twice in one generation to our children,
as it has come to us.” 174 Clem’s suggestion is unmistakable. It is clear that this is a way
to connect to audiences. By saying “decent men and women” Clem is referring to those
in the audience, telling them that only they can stop this war from coming back again in
the future. In other words, it is necessary to fight hard now, and end it once and for
all. 175
More anxiety is created when Vin marries his love interest, Carol, in the midst of
the war. This event causes concern that perhaps Vin is going to die and leave his wife a
widow before they could even live happily together without the war. In fact, throughout
the film, the life of every character is uncertain. Clem is gone for days as he helps the
soldiers at Dunkirk. Bombing raids by the Germans occur several times right over the
Miniver household leaving Kay, Clem, and their two youngest children in harm. Vin is
always gone fighting the Germans. Who is going to die? Who will survive?
The most shocking part of the film is, in fact, who is killed. It is a point that truly
hits home and creates a great deal of emotion in audiences. Instead of Clem or Vin
dying, Vin’s new wife of only a few weeks, Carol, is killed. This horrific event occurs
when Kay and Carol are driving back to the house in order to get to the bomb shelter.
During their journey home, a dogfight breaks out directly above them. Unfortunately,
Carol is hit by a stray bullet and dies shortly after Kay gets her back to the house. This
scene is heartbreaking and difficult to understand. How could Carol be killed? She was
174
175
Ibid.
Ibid.
104
innocent. She did not do anything to deserve death. But this is the point of the film – to
focus on how the war affects everyone and how everyone is susceptible in total war.
Without help and without further intervention, more innocent lives will be put on the line.
One scene that stands out the most is when Kay Miniver encounters a young
German man who was most likely a pilot for the Luftwaffe while she is taking a stroll
outside. Lying in the grass, he is wounded. Kay scampers away but he follows her
home. While holding a gun to her, he orders her to give him any food she has. Before
he leaves, he and Kay have a conversation in which he says “We will come. We will
bomb your cities.”176 He then continues to boast about how the Germans killed 30,000
innocent women and children within two hours. He assures her that they will do the
same in Kay’s town. 177 This scene effectively showed the Germans as inhumane and
sadistic. People in the audience would have been appalled by how cruel the Germans
are, making them want to see some sort of retribution, but this retribution never comes
in the film. In fact, about twenty minutes after this scene Carol dies, which would have
upset the audience even more. It is noteworthy that, for example, Vin does not run off to
kill Germans as a way of evening the score. Instead, this is left for the audience. It is
almost as though Wyler is saying, if you want some sort of retribution against the
Germans, why not do it yourself?
The idea at the heart of the film is summed up in the final scene – a scene that is
perhaps the most famous part of the film. At the conclusion, following Carol’s death, the
176
177
Ibid.
Ibid.
105
Miniver family attends church services. As the preacher walks in, the camera pans out
to show that the church has been bombed and that it is practically falling apart. The
preacher stands up at the pulpit and delivers an inspiring speech:
We in this quiet corner of England, have suffered the loss of friends very dear to
us – some close to this church: George West, choir boy; James Bellard, station
master and bell ringer and a proud winner, only one hour before his death, of the
Belding Cup for his beautiful Miniver rose; and our hearts go out in sympathy to
the two families who share the cruel loss of a young girl who was married at this
altar only two weeks ago. The homes of many of us have been destroyed, and
the lives of young and old have been taken. There is scarcely a household that
hasn’t been struck to the heart. And why? Surely you must have asked yourself
this question. Why in all conscience should these be the ones to suffer? Children,
old people, a young girl at the height of her loveliness. Why these? Are these our
soldiers? Are these our fighters? Why should they be sacrificed? I shall tell you
why. Because this is not only a war of soldiers in uniform. It is a war of the
people, of all the people, and it must be fought not only on the battlefield, but in
the cities and in the villages, in the factories and on the farms, in the home, and in
the heart of every man, woman, and child who loves freedom! Well, we have
buried our dead, but we shall not forget them. Instead they will inspire us with an
unbreakable determination to free ourselves and those who come after us from
the tyranny and terror that threaten to strike us down. This is the people’s war! It
is our war! We are the fighters! Fight it then! Fight it with all that is in us, and may
God defend the right. 178
It is clear why this speech was so powerful. As the preacher explains, this war is
different from others wars. This one is not just fought by soldiers. It is not exclusive to
the battlefield. Instead, civilians are bearing the brunt of the fighting. They are the ones
who are suffering the most. This is because the war is a “people’s war” and in order to
fight this war, the people must stand up and fight for their freedom and for their future.
178
Ibid.
106
He also states that everyone must think of those who have died as an inspiration to
keep fighting and to never back down, because God will “defend the right.”
Another thing that the preacher mentions in his speech is the “Miniver Rose.”
Roses are a major symbol in the film. The rose first appears in the first few scenes of a
film when Mr. Ballard, a stationmaster, stops Kay Miniver to tell her that he named his
rose “The Miniver Rose” after her. Later in the film, the rose festival becomes an
anticipated part of the film as well as another important scene. In the film, the rose can
be viewed as a symbol of England, in particular, England’s countryside. The rose
festival scene breaks away all class distinctions and brings the people in the town
together. An example of this is when Mrs. Beldon, a high society woman, who wins
every year for her roses, allows Mr. Bellard, the lower class stationmaster, to win the
award. This fracture of class distinctions relates to what the war has done to the town –
broken down the class system and united them as one people simply trying to survive
the dangers of war. 179
President Roosevelt was impressed by the film and astonished by the final
speech. In fact, he ordered that the speech be sent all around Europe both in pamphlets
and on the radio. 180 He and Churchill also requested that the film have early viewings
before its release date. Churchill even believed that the film was contributing more
toward defeating the axis powers than any fleet of battleships ever could. 181
179
Troyan, A Rose for Mrs. Miniver, 132-133.
Ibid, 134.
181
Ibid, 147.
180
107
But perhaps most interesting result is how Greer Garson’s popularity and public
image soared to an all-time high. Following her time playing Mrs. Miniver, Greer Garson
became one of the most popular women in Hollywood, and eventually was given the
title the “Queen of MGM.” Because she played Mrs. Miniver, a role that she actually
never wanted at first, she acquired the image of being a war heroine. 182 A journalist
actually said that “morale soared sky-high” because of Greer. 183 One example of her
popularity is what happened when Garson visited Canada in 1942 for a Victory Loans
campaign. While in Canada, she delivered a speech. 184 She said:
“We can’t escape the war, and we shouldn’t try. Mrs. Miniver has been a
constant reminder to me of the things that are happening and have happened to
my friends and relatives in London. They are such good people – gentle people.
There wasn’t an ounce of hate in them. When I first got the news of the bombing
of London, and I thought of them – a wave of fury broke over me. I thought of my
men-folk, so peace-loving, so essentially gentle in spirit, and all of them in
uniform.” 185
Greer contributed a great deal to the war effort after playing Kay Miniver. Her role
in the film and also her connection to loved ones back in Britain are reasons why
Garson wanted to help in any way she could. She even wanted to terminate her
contract with MGM in order to return to England. Greer said she wanted to “drive a
truck, be an air-raid warden, join the Red Cross, run a soup kitchen – whatever they
could find for me I’d do.” 186 However, during a ceremony presenting the Mrs. Miniver
182
Ibid, 134.
Ibid, 135.
184
Ibid, 134.
185
Ibid, 135.
186
Ibid, 154.
183
108
script to the Library of Congress, the British Ambassador encouraged Greer to stay in
America. 187 He told her, “Your value to your country if you do that would be about two
pounds ten shillings a week. But if you stay where you are and the studio continues to
give you pictures like Mrs. Miniver, your value is incalculable.”188 Following this, Greer
did many great things for the war effort while staying in America. She conducted a
nationwide bond selling campaign and visited about three hundred cities with other
Hollywood celebrities. 189 She even met with Eleanor Roosevelt to talk about postwar
rehabilitation. 190
Variety magazine hailed Greer Garson as “brave, wifely, maternal, and a pillar of
civilian morale.” 191 Bosley Crowther, in an article for the New York Times, hailed the film
as most likely “one of the greatest motion pictures ever made” and “the finest film yet
made about the present war.” He pointed out the most effective part of the film, which
was that it was not about soldiers and that there are no epic battles shown. 192 This is
what makes it so powerful. It is a film about the people; a film that shows how war
affects not just the men on the front, but their families back at home. This film touched
the hearts of American more so than the British, which is something worth noticing.
Americans knew what was going on in England; they were not ignorant of it. But
creating a film where the characters are so dearly loved by the audience, and then
187
Ibid, 153.
Ibid, 154.
189
Ibid, 153.
190
Ibid, 154.
191
Ibid 132.
192
Bosley Crowther. "Mrs. Miniver, Excellent Picture of England at War Opens at the Music
Hall." New York Times [New York City] 5 June 1942: 23.
188
109
killing one of these characters, truly horrified Americans. They were finally able to
realize how destructive this war was for average civilians who had no involvement
whatsoever and understand that the time to intervene was steadily approaching.
Conclusion
While the Office of War Information tried to convince directors and producers to
utilize cinema as a war weapon, not everyone needed to be persuaded to speak out
against the war. Even though Chaplin, Curtiz, and Wyler were not the only directors with
strong opinions against Nazism, they were the most successful at conveying their
beliefs to audiences. Their personal experiences and influential expertise in Hollywood
allowed their careers to flourish during the war. Because of this, their movies became
three of the most important films created during the war as well as the three most
important films that united the American people.
The Great Dictator, Casablanca, and Mrs. Miniver were so influential that they
are considered by the Library of Congress as “culturally, historically, or aesthetically
significant.” 193 They all comment on the time period in which they were made,
expressing the social and political issues occurring during World War II. The positive
reaction from the audience, such as the uproarious laughter and applause during The
Great Dictator, the cheering and clapping during Casablanca, and the association of
Greer Garson as a war heroine because of Mrs. Miniver, demonstrates how effective
they were at communicating to audiences. Also, the fact that each of these films either
193
"Films Selected to The National Film Registry, Library of Congress 1989-2009 (National Film
Preservation Board, Library of Congress)."
110
won or were nominated for numerous Academy Awards illustrates how important they
were in the eyes of the film community.
They are considered “works of enduring significance to American culture”
because of the main goals they were trying to accomplish. 194 In The Great Dictator,
Charlie Chaplin used his celebrated wit and humor to make a statement about the war.
His goal in this film was to call to attention the issues surrounding Nazi occupied
countries. His serious speech at the end was a way to say that even though the film was
a comedy, the war was a real and serious problem. Because of his numerous
connections with political leaders, other filmmakers, and prominent figures in America,
Chaplin was able to acquire information with which many American were not familiar:
the reality of the horrific treatment of the Jews and the escalating danger of Hitler.
Michael Curtiz’s patriotism was evident in the films he made during World War II,
especially Casablanca. His goal for this film was to reminisce about old America and the
peaceful, passive lifestyle people led before the war broke out, which is similar to his nostalgia
regarding Budapest and the way he remembered the country and city he loved. He was also
trying to relate audiences to the events that happened in the film. It was the perfect allegory for
American during the war – the smoking, drinking, confinement, and the character of Rick.
William Wyler clearly wanted to use Mrs. Miniver as a propaganda tool. His goal
was to expose Americans to what was happening to its allies in Britain. He wanted
people to see this film and understand that the war in Europe was more serious that
194
"Audio-Visual Conservation (Library of Congress Packard Campus, Culpeper, Virginia)."
Audio-Visual Conservation (Library of Congress Packard Campus, Culpeper, Virginia).
111
anyone thought it was. He wanted people to start supporting Britain and maybe even
pull America out of isolationism. Most notable is Carol’s death in the film, which
represented the many innocent people who died in Britain at the hands of the Germans.
Her death was cruel and unjust, but these were the exact emotions Wyler wanted to
evoke from audiences. He wanted them to realize how unfair the war was and how
Germany should be stopped as soon as possible before any more innocent civilians
died.
Even though they had different backgrounds, stories, and reasons for making
films, these three directors have become outstanding examples of how Hollywood used
characters and personal stories to spark enthusiasm in audiences in order to persuade
them to believe in a cause. Though each of the films was significant in their own unique
way, they taught audiences that in order to gain back restricted freedoms people must
rise up against oppressive leaders, that during times of war everyone must work
together regardless of class, and that “we’ll always have Paris.”
Bibliography
"2008 Entries to National Film Registry Announced - News Releases (Library of
Congress)." Library of Congress Home.
Aljean Harmetz. The Making of Casablanca: Bogart, Bergman, and World War II. (New
York: Hyperion, 2002).
112
"Audio-Visual Conservation (Library of Congress Packard Campus, Culpeper,
Virginia)."
Bosley Crowther. "Mrs. Miniver, Excellent Picture of England at War Opens at the
Music Hall." New York Times [New York City] 5 June 1942: 23.
Casablanca. DVD. Directed by Michael Curtiz. (Burbank: MGM Home Video, 1943).
“Chaplin’s Dictator Speech,” World Affairs, Vol. 104, No. 1 (March 1941) pp. 36-37.
Charles Chaplin, Charles Chaplin: My Autobiography, (New York: Simon and Schuster,
1964).
Clayton R. Koppes, and Gregory D. Black. "What to Show the World: The Office of War
Information and Hollywood,
1942-1945." The Journal of American History
64, no. 1 (1977): 87-105. jstor.org.
"Films Selected to The National Film Registry, Library of Congress 1989-2009 (National
Film Preservation Board, Library of Congress)."
Fred M. Leventhal “British Writers, American Readers: Women’s Voices in Wartime.”
Albion: A Quarterly Journal
Concerned with British Studies 23, no. 1
(2000): 1-18.
Gary Green, “‘The Happiest of Accidents?’ A Reevaluation of ‘Casablanca.’”
Smithsonian Studies in American Art Vol. 1.2 (1987): 2-13.
Harlan Lebo. Casablanca: Behind the Scenes. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992).
Howard Koch, and Julius Epstein, Casablanca: Script and Legend. (Woodstock:
Overlook Press, 1992).
Jack Nachbar. "Casablanca and the Home Front." Journal of Popular Film & Television
Vol. 24.4 (2000): 5-11
James C Robertson. The Casablanca Man: The Cinema of Michael Curtiz. (London:
Routledge, 1993).
John C. Burnham, Bad Habits: Drinking, Smoking, Taking Drugs, Gambling, Sexual
Misbehavior, and Swearing in American History. (New York: New York
University Press, 1993).
Jürgen Trimborn, Leni Riefenstahl: A Life, (New York: Faber and Faber Inc. 2007).
113
Kathleen McLaughlin. "German Fans See Chaplin's Satire," (New York Times 10 Aug.
1946).
Kati Marton. The Great Escape: Nine Jews Who Fled Hitler and Changed the World.
(New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006).
Michael E. Birdwell. Celluloid Soldiers the Warner Bros. Campaign Against Nazism.
(New York: New York University Press, 1999), 5.
Michael Troyan. A Rose for Mrs. Miniver: the Life of Greer Garson. (Lexington, KY: The
University Press of Kentucky, 1999).
Mordaunt Hall. “The Brown Shirts,” (New York Times, May 1, 1934).
Mrs. Miniver. DVD. Directed by William Wyler. (United States: Turner Entertainment
Co. and Warner Bros.
Entertainment, 1942).
Nick Clooney, The Movies That Changed Us: Reflections on the Screen. (New York:
Atria Books, 2002).
Richard Raskin. "‘Casablanca’ and United State Foreign Policy." Film History Vol. 4.2
(1990): 153-164.
Robert Van Gelder, “Chaplin Draws a Keen Weapon,” (New York Times, September 8,
1940).
Sarah Kozloff. “Wyler’s Wars.” Film History, Vol. 20, no. 4 (2008): 456.
Thomas Patrick Doherty. Projections of War: Hollywood, American Culture, and World
War II. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993).
114