112
PARTISAN REVIEW
He has found the role to play. When Senator McCarthy identifies him–
self with
right
and identifies anyone who opposes him with the Com–
munist conspiracy, he carries the political morality play to its paranoid
conclusion-a reductio ad absurdum in which right and wrong, and po–
litical good and evil, dissolve into: are you for me or against me? But
the question may be asked, are not this morality and this politics fun–
damentally just as absurd and just as dangerous when practiced on a
national scale in our commercial culture? The world is
not
divided into
good and evil, enemies are
not
all alike, Communists are
not
just Nazis
with a different accent; and it is precisely the task of political analysis
(and the incidental function of literature and drama) to help us under–
stand the nature of our enemies and the nature of our opposition to
them. A country which accepts wars as contests between good and evil
is suffering from the delusion that the morality play symbolizes real po–
litical conflicts.
Some political theorists would like to manipulate this delusion:
they hold that the only way to combat Communism is to employ the
"useful myth" that the current world struggle is a battle between Chris–
tianity and atheism, that the free world represents God on earth and
the Communist countries, the anti-Christ. Such a " useful myth" may
very likely, however, be purchased (for the most part) just as cynically
as it is sold. Is a myth a myth for the public that accepts it without con–
viction? Or does "Fight for God" become more like the advertising slo–
gan "Always Buy Chesterfields"-a slogan which does not prevent the
Chesterfield smoker from having nagging fears of lung cancer and
heart disease? The modem man who fights in a mythical holy crusade
knows he's compelled to fight-whether it's for God or not.
Cecil B. DeMille, who might lay claim to having falsified history
as much as any man alive, is now at work on
The Ten Commandments
(in Vista Vision ) . H e states: "It's amazing how much our story parallels
the world situation today"-the parallel may be a bit elusive, but no
doubt DeMille will make his point. Other film makers, suddenly con–
fronted with CinemaScope, have been raiding his domain; they appear
to be so dazzled by the width of the screen they feel it can only be filled
by God. Their primitive awe is similar to that of the public which is
attracted to "big" pictures. Though it is easy to scoff at the advertising
which emphasizes the
size
of a picture-the cast of thousands, the
number of millions spent-magnitude in itself represents an achieve–
ment to the public. The whole family goes to
The Robe
or
The Greatest
Show on Earth-it's
an event like
Gone with the Wind
or
Duel in the
Sun,
as big as a natural catastrophe. Primitivism takes many forms. We
