I Led 3 Lives

"I Led 3 Lives" was a sincere and authentic expose of the activities of the Communist Party USA. I was impressed by it as a child and I think the plot lines remain very interesting. Although rather cheaply done it had good workmanlike production values. It still provides good insight into the motivations and activities of fanatical subversives which are still valid to this day. I think Richard Carlson did a good, serious job with his role and he was always one of my favorite actors of the '50's. My father, who was a USMC officer at the time with a great interest in the psychology of communism, followed the show regularly. All in all this was one of the more important television productions to ever come along. Unfortunately it would not be touched with a 10 foot pole by the establishment media producers today!

In my childhood Richard Carlson was perhaps my favorite actor because of his many appearances in '50s sci-fi movies (Magnetic Monster, It Came from Outer Space, Creature from the Black Lagoon, etc.). In these and similar movies he consistently portrayed a model of calm, intelligent, thoughtful bravery in the face of strange new dangers, and he continued in this vein in the TV series "I Led Three Lives".

As a child I had no reason to disbelieve the show's portrayals of subversive Communist activities in the United States. Later I read Herbert Philbrick's book that served as the source of the name and background for the series, and it too had the ring of truth.

Yet as other comments here about this show reveal, the idea that America was the target of conspiracy and espionage is derided as paranoid. The investigations of the House Un-American Activities Committee are described as a witch hunt, on the implicit premise that since there are no witches, there must not have been Communists either. We still hear laments for the Hollywood writers, directors, etc., who found it difficult to find work after being blacklisted for refusing to admit to their membership in the Communist Party.

Well, folks, the cat is out of the bag. As if the world was not already full of enough evidence of the evil of Communism, the fall of the Soviet Union led to the opening of the KGB archives in Moscow to researchers, and guess what... At the direction of the Soviet Union, there were Communist agents and sympathizers in the US Army, the Manhattan Project, the State Department, many labor unions, and other strategic targets. The archives show that the Communist Party USA received millions of dollars each year from the Soviet Union for purposes of undermining America, with Hollywood being specifically targeted for infiltration.

In that atmosphere I think it is remarkable that "I Led Three Lives" ever got produced. I whole-heartedly hope that this show does get re-released. However much it may have been dramatized, "I Led Three Lives" shows how America was in fact endangered by its enemies, foreign and domestic.

It's hard to be objective about a series designed to raise the strongest political emotions. I should say that I haven't seen an episode since the show left the air 50-some years ago. I did, however, grow up with the series and share in its political assumptions. What I couldn't see then, but do see now, is how much a creature of its time it was. I think it's probably telling that the series-- to my knowledge - has never been revived or syndicated since the original showing.

As I recall, the show worked well enough strictly as entertainment. The episodes followed a formula as most series do-Herb (Carlson) would learn of some nefarious red doings, consult with FBI man Dressler (Zaremba), foil the doings, and end the show with an instructional on the many insidious appeals of communism. Drama grew out of thwarting red plans and avoiding exposure since Herb was an undercover FBI informant. I don't know how good the ratings were, but I can see the show being kept on the air regardless of popular ratings.

Two general points are worth noting, neither of which makes specific assumptions about a series I haven't seen for decades. First, the program comes out of a formative Cold War period in which the complex dynamic of Western capitalism vs. Marxist anti-colonialism was reduced in the public mind to the simplistics of good vs. evil. Put briefly, the series functioned as a popular reflection of that McCarthy period in which self-serving stereotype replaced real world complexity.

Ironically, however, it's the same simplistic perception of good vs. evil that underlay much of the trauma of Vietnam ten years later, when the extreme disconnect between American beliefs about the war and the actual realities resulted in a domestic crisis at home and mutiny in the ranks abroad. In short, Americans of the 50's were woefully unprepared for the complex political realities evolving outside their TV sets. A longer-term consequence, I believe, of propaganda products like Three Lives and the simplistics of good vs. evil.

Second, during the three years of series run-time (1953-56), covert arms of the US gov't were directly responsible, we now know, for subverting at least two popular democracies abroad-The elected Arbenz gov't of Guatemala (1954) and the elected Mossadegh gov't of Iran (1953). Rather odd behavior, I believe, for the touted defender of democracy as the McCarthyite period presented our side. I wonder what Philbrick and Dressler would have said about our own sneaky subversives, keeping in mind that in democratic theory the will of the people is sovereign above all else.

These brief points are not intended as an apologetic for Soviet communism. I'm sure they propagandized their own people with similar stereotypes about the West, that is, when they weren't busy crushing dissent in their own part of the world. The too, I expect they had their own version of good vs. evil so as to revile capitalist legitimacy. Instead, these points amount to a way of putting together a more critically realistic perspective than what we're force-fed in the media and by long-ago shows like Philbrick's.

In reflecting back on that time, I think it's important to keep such considerations as these in mind. At any rate, It's too bad the episodes aren't available for viewing even now 60-years later. I think they'd still be as provocative and even relevant in today's world, though maybe not in the way intended.

(In passing-for readers too young to recall context. When Khruschev made his reckless "We'll bury you" remark, he was referring to out-producing the West, not to mass murder. Too bad it's since been retailed out of context, but I guess that's the sort of thing I've been talking about.)

This was a good series while it lasted. It pretty much showed what was gong on during this period in our history and the efforts to keep it in check. The left doesn't like the series because it shined a light on communist activities in the U.S. We don't track "commies" anymore because the cold war is over and they lost. Today people can be openly against the U.S. without any fear. They are in academia, the media,Hollywood, the judiciary and at all levels of local and national politics. Their still is, however, resentment among many that there is no longer a U.S.S.R. It would be great to have an updated series like this today. McCarthy was a little over-zealous in his time, but not far off the mark.

I recall the series very well and always tried to watch it. The series portrayed Mr. Hoover and his bureau as a professional, passionate, serious operation. I was a believer then. However, after Hoover's death, quite a bit was focused on how his bureau was run during the '50's and '60's, and his own hatred for Communists. A PBS program even depicted him as a power-hungry tyrant and a homosexual. Taking my own limited knowledge of the 1950 decade while growing up as a child, this TV series was very good. And, as far as Hoover is concerned, he knew how to handle the bunch of politicians in Washington probably better than anyone else. It would seem that this series is on some form of blacklist, as it never appears on cable, satellite, or independent TV channels running old shows. Why this is, I don't know. But, maybe after Mr. Khruschev's speech at the UN in 1960; "We Will Bury You", the country is in the form of being buried!