If you are intrigued by the film as a work of self-justification by its director and screenwriter for giving names to the House Un-American Activities
Committee, write an essay on how effectively the film does justify their choice. How good is the analogy between Terry’s testimony and theirs? Is it always
right to cooperate with the authorities and, if not, why not? You might want to conduct a bit of research on the times, or on the feud between Kazan and
Arthur Miller, especially if you have read, seen, or studied Miller’s play The Crucible. Kazan and Miller had been the closest of colleagues – one writing fine
plays, the other brilliantly directing them—until both were summoned by HUAC. Kazan’s film is a defense of testifying; Miller’s play a denunciation, using the
trials in Salem in 1692 to denounce the anti-communist crusade as a witch hunt. If you are interested in Miller’s approach, let me know and I’ll supply an
article he wrote about it all.
Sample Solution