For some time, I’ve been meaning to write a piece on “problem” movies, films that deal with social ills, such as racism or poverty. I was inspired to do so by much of the discussion this past summer of the movie The Help. Some of the criticism I read of the movie seemed less reflective of that specific work and more typical of all Hollywood movies that tackle social problems.
I thought it might be simpler to ease into this topic by looking at one such movie, to see what it gets right and where it goes wrong in describing a social problem.
Gentleman’s Agreement (1947) is an excellent place to start, as it probably the oldest “problem” movie that represents more of a contemporary approach than its predecessors.
The film was directed by Elia Kazan, with script by playwright Moss Hart, based on the best-selling novel by Laura Z. Hobson. In many ways, the central premise is very meta, a summation of the challenge of all “problem” movies. Reporter Philip Schuyler Green is asked by his publisher to do a series of pieces on the problem of anti-Semitism. But Green can’t figure out how to do it. He’s not Jewish himself; he hasn’t personally experienced prejudice. How can he possible communicate the problem, other than quoting a bunch of cold statistics?
This is the problem that filmmakers also face. I would argue that almost all “problem” movies are made by people who aren’t part of the group experiencing the problem. Robert Townsend’s Hollywood Shuffle isn’t really so much about racism in Hollywood as it is a satire of the problem and a portrayal of what it’s like to be on the receiving end of that force.
Most movie directors are white males. They’re generally well-to-do. Not only are most “problem” movies not made by people who suffer that condition, they’re probably part of the ruling class that’s responsible for it.
Green struggles with this challenge for quite some time and then has an epiphany. Since he’s just moved to New York City from California, and is largely an unknown entity, he’ll simply identify himself as Jewish (“Phil Green”) and see how people respond.
The events that follow successfully avoid one of the pitfalls of most “problem” movies. Almost all social ills are systemic in nature. It’s not about the actions of one person or one company. It’s always about a huge system that operates with the cooperation of most of society. It’s hard to make a movie about systems.
But Gentleman’s Agreement does range far and wide and showing a lot of aspects of anti-Semitism. It shows that the publisher of the magazine, the very man who called for the series, has unwittingly allowed anti-Semitic hiring practices at his company. Green’s Jewish assistant, who is passing as Gentile, in unhappy at the thought of changing that system, because it means that Jews might be hired that would embarrass her and other “good Jews,” or make them look bad.
It shows the ugly behavior of a drunk insulting a Jewish soldier to his face, but it also points a finger at good people who are inwardly shocked at anti-Semitic behavior, but never speak up or act in response.
You see Jews barred from staying at resorts or renting apartments (seen here), but you also see well-meaning liberals, who claim to support Jewish people, nonetheless making certain judgments (as in this clip).
One of the key aspects to this is Green’s girlfriend Kathy (played by Dorothy McGuire). She’s the one who came up with the idea of the series on anti-Semitism in the first place. She has good values. However, she’s very uncomfortable about her boyfriend (eventually fiancé) being seen as Jewish, when (in her mind) it’s not actually true. (One can see this attitude reflected today in heterosexual men who are okay with gays, but go into palpitations if they thought they were being mistaken for one (as in the famous Seinfeld episode “The Outing”).
Now, on to the weaknesses of the film.
The biggest problem is probably Gregory Peck’s portrayal of Schuyler (pronounced “Skyler”) Green. He’s a good man, but also impossibly naïve. Even though he’s a well-traveled journalist, one with a best friend from childhood who’s Jewish, he seems utterly astounded by what he encounters. Because he reacts so angrily to his treatment, he comes across as quite sanctimonious. It would be one thing if he actually was Jewish, and had been treated in this fashion all of his life, but he’s been Jewish for all of five minutes and can’t stop crusading on the issue.
In addition, Green pulls his young son into this situation, telling him he shouldn’t correct his friends when they think he’s Jewish. His son Tommy (played by an 11-year-old Dean Stockwell) ends up getting called ugly names. It’s one thing for an adult to make a decision to put himself through that, but quite another to ask a child to.
Another problem is that we see so little of anti-Semitism from the perspective of actual Jews. Green’s friend Dave Goldman (played by John Garfield) gets a few speeches in, but all he really does is caution his friend that he’s new to the problem and hasn’t built up thicker skin. On the other hand, it’s very effective that Dave gets to be the one to teach Kathy that inaction is just a form of collaboration. We also get a wonderful scene with Sam Jaffe as Professor Lieberman, in which he drolly explains why even non-religious Jews hang on to their Jewish heritage.
Two minor points… It’s a little odd that there’s no mention of the Holocaust, since the camps had been liberated only two years prior. It’s also a little disappointing that Schuyler Green ends up with Kathy in the end, since fashion editor Anne Dettrey (played by Celeste Holm, in an Academy Award-winning performance) is a much better friend and confidant to him and has a much stronger moral compass.
But one of the strengths of Gentleman’s Agreement is that structure still holds up. In many ways, the movie seems old-fashioned today, but that same story of walking a mile in another’s shoes still holds true, if it was about being a woman, a homosexual or a Muslim. You think you know what it’s like, but you don’t, until it happens to you. And it’s rarely about the crude, obvious forms of discrimination, so much as it’s about all the subtle, pervasive ones.