Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

Senteur As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Jakoba True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

SimonJack For all of the spy and espionage thrillers that have been made into movies, people today may be surprised to learn how old the American secret service is – or rather, how young it is. The CIA is the youngest of all the intelligence agencies of NATO nations. It wasn't formed until late 1947. Yet more movies since the last half of the 20th century have been made about or with CIA involvement in the stories than about any other intelligence organization or other government group. Right behind the CIA, with nearly as many movie numbers is the CIA's elder cousin, MI6 of Great Britain. Still, secret intelligence of the espionage type must have been an anathema to North Americans even through two world wars. That point springs from the details of the major Soviet Union espionage scandal that shocked Canada, the U.S. and the rest of the world in 1946. Even growing up during and after World War II, I don't recall ever having heard it being discussed or written about soon thereafter. I do recall watching a TV game show in the mid-1950s in which I first heard the name Gouzenko. But I didn't know about this movie until recent years."The Iron Curtain" was made in 1948. It is the true story, based on the actual events, that led to the world's discovery of the covert espionage activities of the Soviet Union. It was this discovery that some sources label as the beginning of the Cold War according to the Encyclopedia Britannica. Yet, it may never have been known for years or decades to come had it not been for one person – Igor Gouzenko. This movie is his story, from the time he arrived in Canada from Moscow in early 1943 until he defected in Ottawa on Sept. 5, 1945. Gouzenko was a cipher clerk who was loyal to the U.S.S.R. until that time. His wife had arrived from Moscow to join him and their first child was soon born. When he was due to be sent back to Moscow, he decided to defect and take secret espionage files with him. The movie shows how harrowing was his move because of the reluctance of Canadian government offices to believe him, or even to show interest. He even went to a major newspaper and was turned away. How he came to be successful almost seems like a fairy tale. But this is the story on film. Dana Andrews plays Gouzenko superbly. Gene Tierney is his wife, Anna (Svetlana). The supporting cast are all very good in the roles of the top Soviet embassy officials and Canadian Communist party spies. These included Col. Ilya Ranov, head of the Soviet Secret Police (later KGB); Col. Aleksandr Trigorin, chief Soviet military attache; Maj. Semyon Kulin, his deputy; John Grubb (aka "Paul") who established the Canadian Communist Party in 1920 and headed it's espionage activities. While the Soviet embassy officials couldn't be prosecuted, some 39 other civilians and military in government jobs were brought to trial, and 20 convicted of sentences from five years to life in prison. Gouzenko and his family were hidden and protected by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and later were settled in a home with new identities in a Toronto suburb. He later wrote two books and appeared on TV shows with his head hooded to preserve his identity. He died in 1982 and Svetlana died in 2001. In 2003 Ottawa erected a memorial and in 2004 the Canadian government erected a memorial plaque. Some of the names and details in this film have been changed, but it mostly is an accurate portrayal of Gouzenko and his defection. The film appears dark and somber throughout. It was made in black and white and reflects the conditions under which Gouzenko worked and lived at the time. The movie was shot in the actual locales, and the prologue on the film states that all the documents in the film were the authentic items form the real event. While this film could hardly be considered entertaining, it surely is interesting. It provides a good look at the serious espionage activities of the world's largest Communist power and its threat to democracy and peace. On his arrival in Ottawa in 1943, Gouzenko was grilled by the Soviet Secret Police chief, to test his phony credentials. His opening statement is an example of the indoctrination that the Soviets put their own people through. It's a fitting way to end my comments. Gouzenko, "I am now in a foreign country and must always be alert against enemies. I must be careful of all manner of acquaintanceship. I must not engage in cordial conversation with any foreigner whatsoever. Never borrow money from a foreigner. In my apartment, I must be respectful to neighbors but make no friends. I must never permit myself to be more drunk than either my guests or my host. A sober brain, a firm tongue, and alertness. These things must always be with me when I'm with foreigners."

dougdoepke Clearly, this was a TCF prestige production. Impresario Sol Siegel produced, auteur William Wellman directed, popular leads Andrews and Crain starred, while Canadian locations were as accurate as possible. Based on a true story of Soviet espionage, the framing lends genuine authenticity. Not too much exciting happens until the last 20-minutes, when defector Gouzenko tries to get skeptical Canadian authorities to believe his story. That must have been hair-raising, his life on the line.But make no mistake, the narrative is turned into propaganda, sometimes crude, sometimes slick. It's not a question of basic facts. Those I take to be true. Instead, it's a question of stagecraft, namely, how the facts are presented. In short, it's not the 'what' but the 'how'. Note how Soviet officials are presented by the movie makers. How they apparently hate full light— seemingly only to exist in noirish shadow; how they never smile, apparently having no inner feelings; how they only speak in a mechanical manner, apparently having no thoughts of their own; and how they apparently don't love their wives, Gouzenko's fidelity marking him as a potential defector. Indeed, this is Hollywood's attempt to turn on a dime, yesterday's ally becoming today's enemy. In short, TCF had to take up the Cold War too, of which this film was a key entry. Speaking of spying on allies, we might ask Germany's current chancellor Angela Merkel how she likes having her phones bugged by our own NSA. Understandably, it created quite a diplomatic stir (Google 'merkel and spying'). My point is not to defend the Soviets specifically. Rather, it is to point out an important part of cinematic propaganda. Namely, that it's not sufficient to present the basic facts, as some folks believe; it's also how those facts are presented, and here the manner is clearly propagandistic. Soviet stereotypes are created that would endure. My larger point is to beware of any effort to de-humanize an enemy no matter how detestable they may seem. For such an effort can also be turned around on us.

bkoganbing The embellished story of Soviet defector Igor Gouzenko is told here in the documentary style that 20th Century Fox popularized in the post World War II period with such other films as The House On 92nd Street, The Street With No Name and 13 Rue Madeleine. Gouzenko is played here in tightlipped fashion for an uptight man by Dana Andrews with Mrs. Gouzenko played by frequent Andrews co-star Gene Tierney.Gouzenko was a security code clerk at the Soviet Embassy in Ottawa and was an important conduit for top secret information both in and out of official diplomatic channels. During the Cold War it was a standard practice for the Soviets to use their embassies as places of espionage as well as diplomacy as did we. But this started during World War II when both sides were ostensibly allies.Canada had its own role in World War II as an ally, an important supplier of troops and even more important guardian of the North Atlantic sea lanes for supplies. Their scientists worked on the Manhattan Project and the development of a super weapon certainly piqued Soviet interest. Just what were allies America and the United Kingdom working on?When we meet Gouzenko he's a pretty firm true believer in the evangelizing mission of the Soviet state. But what was presented satirically in films like Ninotchka and Comrade X is done seriously here. The material prosperity of the west is something Andrews pretends not to notice, but Tierney isn't quite as self controlled. The friendliness of neighbor Edna Best to Tierney and her infant son proves to be invaluable in the end. No wonder the Soviets tell Andrews to stand aloof from the ordinary Canadians. Random acts of kindness can sometimes really pay off.A good cast of villainous types play various Soviet embassy and intelligence officials. Two should be singled out, a female seductress played by June Havoc who tests Andrews discretion and loyalty and comes up short. And Eduard Franz who plays another embassy official who becomes disillusioned with Communism and isn't so discreet about it.For a Cold War era anti-Communist film, The Iron Curtain holds up well over 60 years later. How convenient of Winston Churchill to provide a title for this film with a famous speech in 1948.

rsternesq One has to wonder whether anyone cares what words mean. Hey folks, this is a true story told in a deliberately understated way to avoid sensationalizing the subject, which was plenty exciting enough. Anyone who thinks it is propaganda either doesn't know what the word means or doesn't realize what is really going on and has been going on for some several hundred years now. Simply stated, there are a very few places in this world where people have achieved a measure of freedom and relative comfort. That is the exception. The rest of the world is a place with far less comfort and freedom. In 1945 and in 2010 there are plenty of bad guys who would like to do harm and once in a while someone upsets their plan. That is a good thing and telling us about it is a good thing. It isn't propaganda. It is our history.