Ingrid Bergman's Fall from Grace

By the late 1940s, Swedish-born Ingrid Bergman had become one of Hollywood's biggest and most beloved stars. Brought to the United States by producer David Selznick, Bergman made her first American film Intermezzo in 1939, later followed by such classics as Casablanca (1942), For Whom the Bell Tolls (1943), Gaslight (1944) and Notorious (1946). America adored Bergman, but this abruptly changed in 1949 when she went to Italy and fell in love with Italian director Roberto Rossellini.

Bergman had gone to Italy to make Stromboli (1950) with Rossellini and during production they began an affair which would lead to a scandal of immense proportions. At the time Bergman was married to Swedish brain surgeon Petter Lindström with whom she had a 10-year-old daughter Pia. Rossellini was also married, having recently had a public affair with actress Anna Magnani. The press was having a field day covering the Bergman-Rossellini affair, especially when word got out that Bergman was also pregnant with Rossellini's child. In February 1950 baby Robertino was born out of wedlock and the next month Bergman was denounced on the floor of the U.S. Senate, with senator Johnson saying that she had perpetrated "an assault on the institution of marriage" and even calling her "a powerful influence for evil". 

The scandal forced Bergman to live in exile in Italy, leaving her daughter Pia and husband in the U.S.. In May 1950, after a highly publicised divorce, Bergman married Rossellini and they had two more children (twin daughters, one of them actress Isabella Rossellini). It wasn't until January 1957 that Bergman returned to the U.S., receiving the New York Film Critics' Best Actress Award for her American comeback role in Anastasia (1956) - the role that would also earn her her second Oscar. The American people had at last forgiven her and welcomed her back, of which Bergman later said: "I’ve gone from saint to whore and back to saint again, all in one lifetime".

Ingrid Bergman and Roberto Rossellini whose marriage ended in divorce in 1957.

The Bergman-Rossellini affair was a major concern to Hollywood. Once the press started to report about the affair, Joseph Breen (head of the Production Code Administration) became very worried, writing to a Jesuit friend that the affair was possibly the most shocking scandal Hollywood had had to face in years, especially since "Miss Bergman, from the first day of her arrival here, [had] always conducted herself in a most commendable manner. There [had] never been even the slightest breath of scandal about her. She was regarded as a fine lady of unimpeachable character, a good wife and a good mother".

On 22 April 1949, Breen wrote a letter to Bergman herself and pleaded with her to deny the accusations made against her. Breen's urgent plea can be read below, as well as a telegram from Walter Wanger who also wanted Bergman to contradict the rumours. Wanger was producer of Bergman's latest film Joan of Arc (1948), playing in the theatres when the affair came out, and he was very concerned about his investment. Bergman refused their requests to deny the rumours and issued a press release several months later (in August) saying that she was divorcing her husband. The scandal undoubtedly contributed to Joan of Arc and Bergman's next film Under Capricorn (released in September 1949) becoming box-office failures. Stromboli was also a box-office bomb in the U.S. but was received better overseas.

Ingrid Bergman on the set of Joan of Arc (1948) with director Victor Fleming (who died shortly after the film was released): "People saw me in Joan of Arc and declared me a saint. I'm not. I'm just a woman, another human being". 

Joseph I. Breen (left) and Walter Wanger

 

Dear Miss Bergman, 

In recent days, the American newspapers have carried, rather widely, a story to the effect that you are about to divorce your husband, forsake your child, and marry Roberto Rossellini.  

It goes without saying that these reports are the cause of great consternation among large numbers of our people who have come to look upon you as the first lady of the screen -- both individually and artistically. On all hands, I hear nothing but expressions of profound shock that you have any such plans.  

My purpose in presuming to write to you in the matter is to call your attention to the situation. I feel that these reports are untrue and that they are, possibly, the result of some overzealousness on the part of a press-agent, who mistakenly believes to be helpful from a publicity standpoint.   

Anyone who has such thoughts is, of course, tragically in error. Such stories will not only not react favourably to your picture, but may very well destroy your career as a motion picture artist. They may result in the American public becoming so thoroughly enraged that your pictures will be ignored, and your box-office value ruined. 

This condition has become so serious that I am constrained to suggest that you find occasion, at the earliest possible moment, to issue a denial of these rumours -- to state, quite frankly, that they are not true, that you have no intention to desert your child or to divorce your husband, and that you have no plans to marry anyone. 

I make this suggestion to you in the utmost sincerity and solely with a view to stamping out these reports that constitute a major scandal and may well result in complete disaster personally.   

I hope you won't mind my writing to you so frankly. This is all so important, however, that I cannot resist conveying to you my considered thought in the matter. 

With assurances of my esteem, I am, 

Very cordially, Joseph I. Breen 

 

________ 

 

Dear Ingrid,   

The malicious stories about your behaviour need immediate contradiction from you. If you are not concerned about yourself and your family you should realize that because I believed in you and your honesty, I have made a huge investment endangering my future and that of my family which you are jeopardizing if you do not behave in a way which will disprove these ugly rumours broadcast over radio and press throughout the world.  

We both have a responsibility to Victor Fleming's memory and to all the people that believe in us. Assume you are unaware, or not being informed of, the magnitude of the newspaper stories, and their consequences, and that you are being completely misled. Do not fool yourself by thinking that what you are doing is of such courageous proportions or so artistic to excuse what ordinary people believe.   

Cable me on receipt of this wire. 

Source: Ingrid Bergman: My Story (1980) by Ingrid Bergman and Alan Burgess

The censorship of advertising

During the heydey of Hollywood, film studios were required to submit all film advertising (publicity stills, posters, press books, trade paper material, trailers etc.) to the Advertising Advisory Council for approval. The AAC, created in November 1933 as a division of the MPDDA (aka the Hays Office), reviewed the submitted material and rejected anything which was considered objectionable. Publicity agent Jeff McCarthy was the AAC's first chief, in charge of AAC operations at the New York headquarters. (McCarthy died in 1937 and was succeeded by his assistant Lester Thompson.) There was also a subdivision of the Council in Hollywood which was headed by Joseph Breen, future head of the PCA.

Seen below are four letters concerning the censorship of advertising material, taken from the wonderful MPPDA Digital Archive of the Flinders University, Australia.  

First up is a letter dated 6 December 1933 (less than a month after the creation of the AAC), written by Robert Gillham (Head of Publicity at Paramount Pictures) to Jeff McCarthy, following the rejection of several film stills. Gillham protests the decision as he doesn't believe that "stills of girls showing their legs are salacious" nor that "girls photographed in underwear, in certain instances, is salacious or objectionable". He also feels that there's a need for clearer guidelines in order to keep the still departments from taking objectionable stills in the future. 

source

Transcript:

December 6, 1933.

Mr. J.J. McCarthy,

Motion Picture Producers &

Distributors of America, Inc.

28 West 44th St.,

New York City.

Dear Mr. McCarthy:-

I am returning the attached stills which have been rejected by the Hays Office. These have been shown to Mr. Shaefer and he does not believe they are objectionable, as neither do I. Therefore, this matter has to be arbitrated or settled in some way because we refuse to accept these rejections. In Mr. Shaefer's opinion, you are drawing the line a little close, and I also believe this is being done. If I may suggest it, I think you will have to be careful in drawing too close a distinction in what is salacious and what is not, otherwise you will kill the whole matter of censorship as it will fall down by its own weight.

I want you to bear in mind that I am 100% for censorship, and I am for censorship of stills and material which is definitely salacious. However, I do not believe that stills of girls showing their legs are salacious and I do not believe that girls photographed in underwear, in certain instances, is salacious or objectionable. I would like to call your attention to the countless ads in all magazines, showing women in all forms, kinds and conditions of underwear, none of which is objectionable to the public.

I understand that there has been some objection from the advertising heads of other companies in regard to the censorship of stills. It might be wise to have a meeting and try to thrash out some definite points on censorship of stills in order that we can prevent our still departments from taking stills of this nature.

Let me say, however, that I am certainly not going to ask our still department to refrain from taking the type of stills I am returning to you herewith.

Bearing in mind the fact that we have leeway to take this matter up with the head of our company in case we believe that the stills should not be rejected, I now have Mr. Shaefer's authority to say, as I stated before, that he does not want these stills rejected. Where do we go from here?

With best regards, I am

Sincerely

'signed Robert Gillham'

The following two letters concern advertising material for Men in White (1934), starring Clark Gable and Myrna Loy. In a letter to MGM's Frank Whitbeck, dated 16 January 1934,  John  Lewis (assistant to Joseph Breen at the Hollywood branch of the AAC) gives approval for two art displays to be used in billboard posters. In another letter to Whitbeck written a week later, Lewis withdraws his approval, having decided that the two sketches were in violation of the advertising code after all. 

source

Transcript:

January 16, 1934.

Mr. Frank Whitbeck

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios,

Culver City, California.

Dear Mr. Whitbeck:

We have inspected and approved two art displays to be used in 24-sheets in the advertising of MEN IN WHITE with Clark Gable, Myrna Loy and Elizabeth Allan.

We have taken into consideration that Myrna Loy is portrayed in an horizontal position in these displays, although fully clothed, but that the character of the art is passable, inasmuch as Clark Gable is clothed in his doctor's uniform, wears a stethoscope and obviously is performing the duties of a doctor.

We also approve the eleven advertising lay-outs on MEN IN WHITE after having inspected the three changes which you made in this office at our request.

Sincerely,

John B. Lewis  

source

Transcript:

January 23, 1934.

Mr. Frank Whitbeck

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios,

Culver City, California.

Dear Mr. Whitbeck:

This is to confirm our conversation via the telephone in which I informed you that it would be necessary to withdraw approval of two sketches for use in 24-sheets on MEN IN WHITE, which were submitted to this office on January 16th.

These two sketches portrayed Myrna Loy in an horizontal position with Clark Gable leaning over her. These sketches are violations of the advertising code under the heading pertaining to horizontal stills, and, therefore, rejectionable.

Would you be kind enough to acknowledge this letter?

With all good wishes, I am,

Sincerely,

John B. Lewis 

The final letter was written by Lester Thompson, Jeff McCarthy's assistant in New York, to John Lewis in Hollywood. The letter deals with the advertising of two films, Guilty Parents (1934) and Thirty Day Princess (1934). Thompson had been alerted to a large ad of Guilty Parents a few days earlier, showing risqué taglines like: "Did you ever see a strip-poker party?", "Exposes the crime horror of illicit love" and "What goes on in parked cars?" Trying to find more information on who was responsible for the ad, Thompson asks for Lewis' assistance. As to Thirty Day Princess, Thompson was at first hesitant about whether to approve a still of a "petting scene with the girl's arm up around the man's neck" but eventually gave his OK.

This is possibly the publicity still referenced in Thompson's letter which was okayed by him.

[Note: As is apparent from the letter by Thompson and the letters above by Lewis, it wasn't always easy to determine whether advertising material should be rejected or not (certainly in the early days of the AAC). Also, the two AAC branches didn't always see eye to eye on these matters. Material approved by Lewis was sometimes rejected by Thompson, and the other way around. (The still of Thirty Day Princess was probably first rejected by Lewis.) For further reading on the inconsistency of the AAC decisions, click here.]

source

Transcript:

March 16th, 1934.

Mr. John B. Lewis,

Motion Picture Producers and

Distributors of America, Inc.,

5504 Hollywood Blvd.,

Hollywood, California.

Dear Mr. Lewis:

I wrote you a day or so ago regarding an "indie" picture, GUILTY PARENTS. We are checking up on this and any information which you can give us by return airmail will be appreciated. All our records show is that it was produced by a Ben S. Cohen and submitted to the New York Censorship Board on October 3, 1933, at which time it was turned down.

At the continued insistence of Robert M. Gillham of Paramount, we reviewed a still on THIRTY DAY PRINCESS, key number 990-26. Personally, I did not think it warranted a rejection. However, that might have been my private opinion. In the absence of Mr. McCarthy, I took this still to Mr. McKenzie and our joint verdict was that it would just slip by. We, therefore, okayed it and notified Gillham, and I promised him that I would write you to this effect. If you do not recall the still, it is a petting scene with the girl's arm up around the man's neck. As Mr. McKenzie pointed out, if they were in a hot embrace it would be highly objectionable, but in the circumstances, we thought it okay.

Your still report and letter of March 12th just received. I am glad to note that you are straightening things out with Paramount.

Under separate cover, I am mailing you today the following completed and okayed books:

Warners: "Jimmy the Gent", "Journal of a Crime"

Paramount: "Wharf Angel", "Come on, Marines"

Fox: "Stand Up and Cheer", "Constant Nymph", "Three on a Honeymoon"

With all best regards, I remain,

Sincerely yours,

Assistant to J.J. McCarthy

What's in a title?

Before any film could be submitted to the Production Code Administration (PCA) for approval, the title of that film first had to be approved and registered with the MPPDA's Title Registration Bureau. Titles that were considered to be in violation of the Production Code were rejected and had to be changed. But prior to 1934 --the year in which the PCA was established and the Code began to be enforced-- many Pre-Code films could still get away with titles which were forbidden under the Code. 

In 1938, Universal wanted to re-issue Laughter in Hell, a crime film which was originally released in 1933. Studios that wanted to re-issue films had to obtain approval from the PCA. But before Universal could get PCA approval, the film's title had to be dealt with first. On 6 June 1938, Francis Harmon (in charge of the Eastern Division of the PCA) wrote to Geoffrey Shurlock (assistant to PCA chief Joseph Breen) after attending a Board meeting: "[...] I doubt whether we should approve a reissue unless and until the title has been changed. [...] There seems to be unanimity that the word "hell" in a title should not be approved unless used in connection with a geographical location." Shurlock wrote back on 10 June: "Are you referring only to possible future re-issues in which the title contains the word "hell", or is it your thought that all titles of future re-issued pictures should be cleared before we issue the certificate?" [source]

The ruling was that indeed áll titles of re-issues should be cleared through the Title Registration Bureau before PCA approval could be given, much to the dismay of Joseph Breen. On 2 August 1938, Breen wrote the following letter to Francis Harmon, clearly annoyed with the new procedure. Seeing that these changes would only add to his already heavy workload and increase PCA's "tremendous amount of red tape", Breen announced to take up the matter with their boss Will Hays and see what could be done about it.

Incidentally, I could find no information whether Laughter in Hell had indeed been re-issued under a different title.

Source: MPPDA Digital Archive

Transcript:

August 2, 1938

Mr. Francis S. Harmon
28 West 44th Street,
New York City

Dear Francis:

I have your telegraphic reply to my wire of last night, in which you tell me we are authorized to approve only those pictures whose titles have been cleared through the Title Bureau and that this regulation applies to the titles of all re-issues.

Joseph I. Breen

We shall, of course, be guided by this regulation, but I must say we are beginning to feel that the extraneous matters, incident to our job of the P.C.A. are beginning to become exceedingly heavy and irksome. You understand, I am sure, that we shall have an immense amount of trouble with our companies over this ruling that titles on re-issues have to be approved in New York. This will mean that the companies will have to go all through the same formula, as they did in the initial effort, and I am sure that they will find it difficult to understand why it is that they will have to have titles approved, on which they already have approval, and, of course, a legal copyright.

However, we shall do as you have suggested until such time as it will be necessary for us to augment our staff here to take care of all these increasing incidentals, which, strictly speaking, have no part in our general responsibility.

Incidentally, I am making it a matter of discussion with Mr. Hays to see if some way can be found to minimize and lessen the tremendous amount of red tape, which seem to be creeping into the P.C.A. work. For my part, I am all against it.

However, once again thanks for all your kindness--

Cordially yours,
(signed)
Joseph I. Breen 

Joseph Breen and The Production Code

When we talk about censorship during Hollywood's Golden Age, one name that will invariably pop up is Joseph Breen. As head of the PCA (Production Code Administration), Breen had to make sure that filmmakers and studios were not violating the Production Code, a set of moral rules adopted in 1930 but not seriously enforced until the establishment of the PCA in 1934. Until his retirement in 1954, Breen, a devout Catholic, controlled the content of thousands of films. He demanded changes in numerous scripts and scenes he deemed inappropriate, much to the chagrin of directors, screenwriters and studio executives. 

Some of Joseph Breen's correspondence from his early years at the PCA (regarding Code-related issues) can be found in the MPPDA (Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America) Digital Archive housed at Flinders University, Australia. There are three letters from that database I would like to share with you, written by Breen respectively in September 1934, February 1935 and October 1935. 

The first letter was written shortly after the PCA had been established. No film was to be released without the approval of the PCA, and films that had been approved were given a seal of approval along with a certificate number (the first film to receive a seal of approval was John Ford's The World Moves On, given certificate no.1 in July 1934). The PCA seal appeared on each release print as a sign that the film had been deemed 'morally unobjectionable'. No film could be exhibited in American theatres without the seal, and any studio that dared to do so ran the risk of being fined $25,000.

Written to Sidney Kent, President of Fox Film, the following letter shows Breen's concern over the fact that the PCA seal was often hissed at during previews. What worried him most was that the hissing came from studio employees or friends of the actors. Breen was concerned that his business associates might think that the Production Code was "unworthy of support and not to be taken seriously"— so could Kent please bring up the subject with his fellow studio heads?

source

Transcript:

Sept. 5, 1934

Mr. Sydney R. Kent, President

Fox Studio

Hollywood, Calif.,

Dear Mr. Kent:

I am presuming to address you in confidence about a matter which has given us some little concern here in the office of the Production Code Administration.

Frequently, at previews here in Hollywood, when our Production Code Administration seal is thrown upon the screen, it is greeted with loud hissing and cat-calls. We have noticed this several times, especially with pictures made by Warner Brothers. It has been noted also that most of this hissing is done by those who occupied the roped-off seats at the preview. These people, as you know, are usually either studio employees or the friends of the artists who appear in the picture. Admission to these roped-off areas is always reserved to the studio sponsoring the preview.

I hate like blazes to presume upon your kindness this way, but I wonder if you could find time, over the telephone, to mention this situation to the responsible heads of Warner Brothers, Paramount, Metro, Columbia and Universal. The hissing has had the effect of attempting to create in the minds of the people with which we have to do business, the thought that the work of the Production Code is unworthy of support and not to be taken seriously. It adds much to our already over-weighted burden.

It seems to me that a word from you in this regard would be very helpful and make our task less uneasy.

With assurances of my esteem, I am,

Cordially yours,

(signed)

Joseph I. Breen

The second letter is addressed to Vincent Hart of the Eastern Studio Relations Office of the MPPDA. Worried about "the increased number of stories dealing with crime and bloodshed", Breen provides Hart with a list of don'ts for crime movies.

source

Transcript:

February 21, 1935

Mr. Vincent G. Hart,

28 W. 44th St.,

New York, N.Y.

Dear Mr. Hart:

In recent weeks our records here indicate that there is every likelihood of our being confronted with a greatly increased number of stories dealing with crime and bloodshed. These, of course, are giving us much concern. With the view to lessening the definitely anti-social element in such pictures, we have sought to evolve a formula for our guidance in handling these potentially dangerous themes.

To the end that you may share with us our general policy in this matter, I ask you that you read and study very carefully the following outline for your general guidance.

(1) "Details of crime" must never be shown and care should be exercised at all times in discussing such details.

(2) Action suggestive of wholesale slaughter of human beings, either by criminals, in conflict with the police, or as between warring factions of criminals, or in public disorder of any kind, will not be allowed.

(3) There must be no suggestion, at any time, of excessive brutality.

(4) Because of the alarming increase in the number of films in which murder is frequently committed, action showing the taking of human life, even in the mystery stories, is to be cut to a minimum. These frequent presentations of murder tend to lessen regard for the sacredness of life.

(5) Suicide, as a solution of problems occurring in the development of screen drama, is to be discouraged as "morally questionable" and as "bad theatre" - unless absolutely necessary for the development of the plot.

(6) There must be no display, at any time, of machine guns, sub-machine guns  or other weapons generally classified as "illegal" weapons in the hands of gangsters, or other criminals, and there are to be no off-stage sounds of the repercussion of these guns. This means that even where the machine guns, or other prohibited weapons, are not shown, the effect of shots coming from these guns must be cut to a minimum. 

(7) There must be no new, unique or "trick" methods for concealing of guns shown at any time.

(8) The flaunting of weapons by gangsters, or other criminals, will not be allowed.

(9) All discussions and dialogue on the part of gangsters regarding guns must be cut to the minimum.

(10) There must be no scenes, at any time, showing law-enforcing officers dying at the hands of criminals. This includes private detectives and guards for banks, motor trucks, etc.  

With special reference to the crime of kidnaping-- or illegal abduction- it has been our policy to mark such stories acceptable under the Code only when the kidnaping or abduction is: 

(a) Not the main theme of the story

(b) The person kidnaped is not a child

(c) There are no "details of the crime" of kidnaping

(d) No profit accrues to the abductors or kidnapers

(e) Where the kidnapers are punished

With regard to the use of the word "nuts" in pictures, please note:

(1) The word "nuts" when used to characterize a person as crazy is acceptable. In other words, the expressions, "You're nuts"; "He's nuts"; or "He's a nut" may be used.

(2) The use of the word "nuts" as an exclamation should not be used, as in the case of "Aw, nuts", or "Nuts to you", etc.  

With kindest personal regards, I am,

Cordially yours, 

(signed)

Joseph I. Breen

The final letter was written to Will Hays, head of the MPPDA and Joseph Breen's boss. The letter concerns the re-release of two Pre-Code pictures starring Mae West, She Done Him Wrong (1933) and I'm No Angel (1933). Studios that wanted to re-release films from the 1920s and early 1930s also had to obtain approval from the PCA. Re-releases of these Pre-Code films were generally rejected unless major cuts were made (films such as Animal Crackers (1930) and A Farewell to Arms (1932) were extensively cut and only their censored versions survived). Luckily, many Pre-Code films were too controversial to be re-released and thus remained intact.

When Paramount wanted to re-release She Done Him Wrong and I'm No Angel, the films were rejected by the PCA. Whenever a film was rejected, studios could still appeal the decision to the Board of Directors of the MPPDA. To make sure that Will Hays would turn down both pictures if Paramount decided to appeal, Joseph Breen wrote Hays the following letter, saying the pictures were "definitely wrong". Whether or not Paramount appealed, I don't know.

source

Transcript:

October 7, 1935

Mr. Will H. Hays

28 W. 44th St.,

New York, N.Y.

Dear Mr. Hays:

I acknowledge with thanks the receipt of your letter, bearing date of October 3, with reference to the Paramount pictures SHE DONE HIM WRONG, and I'M NO ANGEL, both of which have been the subject of discussion in connection with the application for a PCA seal of approval.

I have read your letter with care, as well as the documents attached thereto. I am not certain that an appeal will be taken from our decision, but there is a likelihood that such an appeal may be made. In any event, I wanted you to be "au courant" with our problem here.

I saw both pictures myself, and they are definitely wrong. It would be a tragedy if these pictures were permitted to be exhibited at the present time. I am certain that such exhibitions would seriously throw into question much of the good work which has been done and stir up enormous protest.

If an appeal is made, I hope the Board of Directors will turn down both of these pictures. 

With kindest personal regards, I am, 

Cordially yours, 

(signed) 

Joseph I. Breen

All letters taken from the MPPDA Digital Archive

This post is my contribution to the Classic Movie History Project Blogathon, co-hosted by Movies Silently, Once Upon A Screen and Silver Screenings and sponsored by Flicker Alley. Check out all the other entries here.

The book cannot be picturised!

In early 1934, before James M. Cain's crime novel The Postman Always Rings Twice was even published, RKO submitted a synopsis of Cain's story to the censors to see if it could be made into a film. Columbia and Warner Bros. were also interested in adapting the story, but Joseph Breen, later head of the Production Code Administration (PCA), considered the material (containing adultery, illicit sex and murder) unsuitable for a motion picture. All three studios decided not to pursue the idea. MGM, however, was set on filming the story and purchased the film rights for $25,000 without consulting Breen or Breen's boss Will Hays. Breen then made several pleas to MGM not to proceed with the film. In April 1934, MGM gave in and decided to abandon the project.

Ten years later, when Billy Wilder got permission from the PCA to film Cain's novella Double Indemnity (which had the same moral taboos and was previously deemed unfilmable too), MGM resumed its plans to film The Postman Always Rings Twice. The PCA finally gave its approval in May 1945 after certain elements had been removed from the story. The film, starring Lana Turner and John Garfield, was released in 1946 and is still considered to be the best adaptation of Cain's novel.

John Garfield and Lana Turner in a publicity still for Tay Garnett's 1946 "The postman always rings twice".

On 28 March 1934, after Joseph Breen had already urged MGM to drop the film, Will Hays himself wrote a letter to MGM's president Nicholas Schenck. Hays strongly advised to abandon the project and reminded Schenck that the film would be rejected, if and when submitted to the censors for approval. Hays also gave a detailed synopsis of the story (spoilers!) to make his case. As stated above, MGM would follow the advice of the censors and drop the picture (for the moment).

Will Hays (left) and Nicholas Schenck

Source: mppda digital archive

Transcript:

March 28, 1934

Mr. Nicholas M. Schenck,

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Dist. Corp.,

1540 Broadway

New York, N.Y.

Dear Mr. Schenck:

Following the discussion at the meeting of the Board of Directors relative to certain books and plays, the filming of which will either have to be abandoned entirely or the very greatest care used:

You will remember the discussions of the necessities in this regard and the particular books and plays which were discussed and as to which it was agreed that the greatest care should be exercised and the concluded film made entirely in compliance with the Code or rejected in toto when concluded.

Pursuant to the suggestion of the Board that the discussion be followed by letters concerning each picture to the producing company, I am sending you this additional word supplemental to my letter to you of March 15 relative to

THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE

On March 9, while Mr. Breen was discussing another story with Mr. Mannix at Metro, he (added in pen: Mr. Mannix) casually mentioned the fact that he had just concluded the purchase, for $ 25,000, of the novel "The Postman Always Rings Twice". This information came to Mr. Breen as something of a shock because not two hours previously they had succeeded in persuading Columbia not to purchase the story; a fortnight previously they had done the same thing with RKO; and it had recently come to their attention that Warner Bros. had declined to purchase the novel, without consultation with our office, because they feared that it would be impossible to make a proper picture of the subject matter.

It seems to be a realistic story of a down-and-out hitchhiker who finds himself thrown off a hay truck near a roadside sandwich shop in California. He strikes up an alliance with the wife of the owner of the shop, and after a series of sex affairs with her they attempt the murder of her husband. This fails, the illicit sex affair is continued, and a second attempt to murder the woman's husband is made which succeeds. The man evades his complicity in the murder by signing an affidavit placing the blame on the woman but despite this she is acquitted. The illicit sex relationship is again resumed until the woman leaves the man to attend her mother during her mother's illness. While she is away, he meets another woman and has an illicit sex affair with her. The first woman, on returning, learns of the affair of the other woman and toys with the idea of killing the man who at the same time entertains a similar idea with respect to her. At this juncture the woman becomes pregnant and the man marries her. She suffers a miscarriage while swimming and the man hurries her to a hospital. In his anxiety the car is wrecked and his wife is killed. He is suspected of a deliberate attempt to murder her and, with his unsavoury reputation by reason of his previous connection with murder, is convicted. The story closes as he is about to walk to the gallows.

On March 19 Mr. Breen wrote Mr. Mayer that the novel which had been sent to him, had been read and that a number of the details "point definitely to several violations of our Production Code which are likely to compel us, in the dispensation of our responsibility under the machinery of the Code, definitely to reject the picture, if and when it is submitted to this office for approval."

Several in this office have also read the book and the opinion is unanimous that it can not be picturized. It is my reasoned judgment that the company should now, before further sums are expended in preparation of a script, announce that it will not attempt to develop a treatment of this story.

This opinion is based on the apparent difficulty in making a proper picture; upon the criticism that obtains; and the points made by the other studios, already coming to Mr. Breen, that "nothing you are asking us to take out of our script is as bad as THE POSTMAN story that Metro has bought"; the action of the other studios in connection with the book after consultation with Mr. Breen; the fact that this case is different from others, such as SAILOR, BEWARE (which is also causing worry as you know), because in that case the play was bid for by two other companies while in this case the book was rejected by three companies, two of them after consultation at length with our office. In support of the suggestion that it would be well to abandon the production now, I am submitting a memorandum herewith, marked Exhibit "A", which I will appreciate if you will read and which you may find useful if the company proceeds to endeavor to make a treatment. 

I am very mindful, indeed, of your suggestion to the Board that you thought it best to endeavor to make a treatment, that if a treatment could not be found entirely satisfactory under the Code that the whole matter would then be abandoned.

I know your personal interest in the matter and the company's purpose to protect itself and the industry against the difficulties, and I am confident of your cooperation.

I have heretofore forwarded you copies of several of Mr. Breen's letters.

With kindest personal regards, I am,

Sincerely yours,

Will H. Hays (sgd)

cc Mr. Joseph I. Breen