Hollywood is a master of revisionist history, especially when that history is its own. One of the defining moments in the history of Hollywood and America was the series of congressional hearings held by the House Un-American Activities Committee, or HUAC, and led by Senator Joseph McCarthy in the late 1940s and early 1940s. Fifty years in order to officially eliminate communism from the United States. Hollywood was closely involved in the HUAC hearings, and one of those most fiercely targeted in the controversy was the acclaimed film and theater director Elia Kazan. Despite an illustrious career in which he directed nearly two dozen films, including such classics as A Streetcar Named Desire, On the Waterfront and East of Eden, and collaborated with Pulitzer Prize-winning playwrights Arthur Miller and Tennessee Williams for both stage and screen, Kazan is remembered by many only for his testimony before this committee. This point is illustrated by the heated controversy over the director's Lifetime Achievement Award, which was awarded to him at the 1999 Academy Awards. Kazan's importance to the world of cinema is undisputed, but Hollywood remains divided by a single political story that occurred beyond half a century ago. The Academy Award was therefore contested by some and supported by others. But should Elia Kazan still be regarded with such disdain by his peers and contemporary members of the Hollywood community? Should his legacy rest on this transgression, rather than his long history of cinematic success? And has Kazan already put the whole topic to rest in On the Waterfront, perhaps the best work of his entire career? I hope to answer these questions in an essay that will discuss the t...... half of the paper ......, being a “friendly witness” of the Congressional committee, has made the task equally difficult for anyone who would otherwise forgive or forget what he did. Even though Kazan's testimony was essentially symbolic, and despite the fact that many others were guilty of the same crimes against Hollywood, his name has become the symbol most associated with HUAC. As I said at the beginning, Hollywood is a master storyteller, especially when the stories he tells are about himself. In this case, Hollywood had to write the ending to the story, since Kazan never apologized or offered any closure on the matter. As a result, Kazan became more of an antagonist than the communists themselves. The HUAC, in hindsight, was an ugly and embarrassing incident in American history that many would rather forget. Yet even after Elia Kazan's death in 2003, the debate rages on.