Arthur Miller is one of our best authors. His play however reeks of a bias, that makes him seem ignorant of his own times. Without Industry, and the profit system, the US would not have won WWII. Rubber was one of those items needed to fight a modern war. And it was the "war profiters" who provided our nation with synthetic rubber. If your too young to remember, ask your grandfather or Dad about the rubber shortage.
If a writer wants to focus on immorality, why don't they start at the top, and blame those politicians and propagandists who get us into wars. Watch nearly every movie made from 1939 until 1945, and you will see what Playboy magazine called "Hollywood Go to War."
People of German, Italian and Japanesse decent were racially and ethnically played in the worst possible way, and any artist worth his salt would agree that even a movie as great as Casablanca had its share of propaganda.
Miller and Chester Erskine, who adapted Miller's play seemed an illogical indictment of anyone who made a profit during the war.
Aircraft pistons are one part of an Aircraft. They are less likely to fail than compression rings, rods, bearings, electrical and hydraulic parts. Losing one piston, does not usually cause crashes.
Writers may be clever about how they write, but they can sound awfully stupid writing dialog that has Joe Keller stating that he "beat an old stove up for scrap." Scrap is sold by the pound, not by condition.
More importantly, both writers seem to be totally ignorant of the government and manufacturer's inspection systems. Manufactures would not accept "junk" material from a subcontractor. As aircraft are put together, each manufacturer assumes liability for the pieces they build. More than the Federal inspectors, they would not risk their contracts by routinely and criminally accepting faulty pistons. Miller and Erskine conveniently overlook that logic and fact, and concentrate on one character who probably would have been caught before the piston ever found its way into an aircraft.
Before the aircraft was accepted by the military, it would be flown to its maximum performance standards. The military would also fly the aircraft in a test flight before sending it into combat. The failure of one piston, in an engine would not usually bring an aircraft down. This is particularly true of multi-engine aircraft. And perfectly good pistons have been known to break down occasionally. Producing perfectly good pistons that break is not a crime or immoral. Proving that a faulty piston caused 29 accidents, and was a crime, is legal fantasy.
There may have been a million pistons produced in WWII. The sheer number makes it likely that some perfectly good pistons failed.Miller's and Erskine's play and film script becomes a tall tale to weave its "moral" failings of one man, or the industries that produced "The Arsenal" of Democracy.
From the lowest person who pushed a broom, to the very capable men who made millions, Miller's seemed to go out of its way to indict the industry that provided the arms for the the millions in uniform. I would be foolish to defend the rotten apples, cowards, stupid mistakes, and expediencies which cost lives. It just makes me wonder why Miller picked on one piston manufacturer to make his clumsy points. I recall a line in the film dialog, where Joe Keller stated that he had been arrested and spent some time in jail, and the jury declared him innocent. Did Miller or Erskine ever attend a real criminal trial? Does he know what it takes to convict anyone in this country? Convincing a jury that a batch of bad pistons among millions caused 29 crashes goes beyond any real concept of the trail system.
Why did Miller pick a fight with the men who made profits during the war? His play shows his contempt for such men, the film version softened his personal views.
The film ignores some basic facts. A public trial opens up an opportunity for all sorts facts and evidence to surface. More importantly, since Joe Keller was acquitted, he could not be charged again. As the film opens, his reputation is already an open question with some in his circle of friends, and should have been fixed during the time the film opens. Neither Miller nor Erskine inject any new information into Keller's guilt or innocence. Whether Keller was sick or not on the day the "faulty" pistons were shipped, in any ordinary trial would have been investigated and regurgitated by Keller's defense team. Keller's statement at the dinner table, that" he had never been sick a day in his life" has as much resonance as the comments all men make at times, such as "I would have killed him".
Miller doesn't know anything about American combat pilots. They were not inclined to go on suicide missions due to defects in family or friends.
Miller should have written what it was like to have survived as a combat crew-member during the war. Or the moral anguish that officers had over sending men to their death. especially when mistakes were made. Did they have a moral struggle to admit they cost innocent lives?
Miller's play is a fiction that goes beyond "literary license" and to this film lover, seems to be an effort at politics, rather than a morality play.
I still do not understand the purpose for creating a character like Kate Keller. Anyone who continued to think her son was still alive three years after the war does not seem to be a stable person and more likely to commit suicide than the character of Joe Keller.
If a writer wants to focus on immorality, why don't they start at the top, and blame those politicians and propagandists who get us into wars. Watch nearly every movie made from 1939 until 1945, and you will see what Playboy magazine called "Hollywood Go to War."
People of German, Italian and Japanesse decent were racially and ethnically played in the worst possible way, and any artist worth his salt would agree that even a movie as great as Casablanca had its share of propaganda.
Miller and Chester Erskine, who adapted Miller's play seemed an illogical indictment of anyone who made a profit during the war.
Aircraft pistons are one part of an Aircraft. They are less likely to fail than compression rings, rods, bearings, electrical and hydraulic parts. Losing one piston, does not usually cause crashes.
Writers may be clever about how they write, but they can sound awfully stupid writing dialog that has Joe Keller stating that he "beat an old stove up for scrap." Scrap is sold by the pound, not by condition.
More importantly, both writers seem to be totally ignorant of the government and manufacturer's inspection systems. Manufactures would not accept "junk" material from a subcontractor. As aircraft are put together, each manufacturer assumes liability for the pieces they build. More than the Federal inspectors, they would not risk their contracts by routinely and criminally accepting faulty pistons. Miller and Erskine conveniently overlook that logic and fact, and concentrate on one character who probably would have been caught before the piston ever found its way into an aircraft.
Before the aircraft was accepted by the military, it would be flown to its maximum performance standards. The military would also fly the aircraft in a test flight before sending it into combat. The failure of one piston, in an engine would not usually bring an aircraft down. This is particularly true of multi-engine aircraft. And perfectly good pistons have been known to break down occasionally. Producing perfectly good pistons that break is not a crime or immoral. Proving that a faulty piston caused 29 accidents, and was a crime, is legal fantasy.
There may have been a million pistons produced in WWII. The sheer number makes it likely that some perfectly good pistons failed.Miller's and Erskine's play and film script becomes a tall tale to weave its "moral" failings of one man, or the industries that produced "The Arsenal" of Democracy.
From the lowest person who pushed a broom, to the very capable men who made millions, Miller's seemed to go out of its way to indict the industry that provided the arms for the the millions in uniform. I would be foolish to defend the rotten apples, cowards, stupid mistakes, and expediencies which cost lives. It just makes me wonder why Miller picked on one piston manufacturer to make his clumsy points. I recall a line in the film dialog, where Joe Keller stated that he had been arrested and spent some time in jail, and the jury declared him innocent. Did Miller or Erskine ever attend a real criminal trial? Does he know what it takes to convict anyone in this country? Convincing a jury that a batch of bad pistons among millions caused 29 crashes goes beyond any real concept of the trail system.
Why did Miller pick a fight with the men who made profits during the war? His play shows his contempt for such men, the film version softened his personal views.
The film ignores some basic facts. A public trial opens up an opportunity for all sorts facts and evidence to surface. More importantly, since Joe Keller was acquitted, he could not be charged again. As the film opens, his reputation is already an open question with some in his circle of friends, and should have been fixed during the time the film opens. Neither Miller nor Erskine inject any new information into Keller's guilt or innocence. Whether Keller was sick or not on the day the "faulty" pistons were shipped, in any ordinary trial would have been investigated and regurgitated by Keller's defense team. Keller's statement at the dinner table, that" he had never been sick a day in his life" has as much resonance as the comments all men make at times, such as "I would have killed him".
Miller doesn't know anything about American combat pilots. They were not inclined to go on suicide missions due to defects in family or friends.
Miller should have written what it was like to have survived as a combat crew-member during the war. Or the moral anguish that officers had over sending men to their death. especially when mistakes were made. Did they have a moral struggle to admit they cost innocent lives?
Miller's play is a fiction that goes beyond "literary license" and to this film lover, seems to be an effort at politics, rather than a morality play.
I still do not understand the purpose for creating a character like Kate Keller. Anyone who continued to think her son was still alive three years after the war does not seem to be a stable person and more likely to commit suicide than the character of Joe Keller.