For Lord's Sake, don't let those bulbs stick out

In July 1934, Joseph Breen and his Production Code Administration (PCA) started to strictly enforce the Motion Picture Production Code, Hollywood's own set of censorship rules that was adopted in 1930 (aka the Hays Code). Up till then PCA's predecessor, the Studio Relations Committee (SRC), had been tasked with implementing the Code. The SRC had no authority, however, to censor content or order studios to remove content; all they could do was advise studios on how to change the scripts in order to meet the Code's requirements. As the SRC only had an advisory capacity and no penalties were given for violating the Code, studios often ignored the SRC's suggestions. This did not mean, however, that pre-Code films (made between 1930 and mid-1934) went uncensored. City and state censorship boards could order studios to cut films or they could even ban films from playing in cinemas. With the costs for cutting films being paid by the studios, a major concern for studio executives was the fact that each censorship board had different rules, so what was allowed in one state/city could be forbidden in another. This often meant making different cuts of the same film, costing studios large amounts of money. (By giving studios advice, the SRC tried to save them from making these costly cuts and to help them get their films past the censors. Nevertheless, as said, the SRC's advice was frequently ignored.) 

Adolphe Menjou flanked by Joan Blondell (l) and Mary Astor in a publicity still for Convention City.

Of all the major studios Warner Bros. was the most recalcitrant when it came to following the Code. Joseph Breen hated the pre-Code Warner films and called them "the lowest bunch we have". Nevertheless, at times the studio had to give in to the censors, for example with Baby Face (1933), which was initially rejected by the New York State Censorship Board; only after Warners made the changes that had been demanded by the New York censors —financially NYC was too important a market to lose— the film got accepted. 

Here are two memos, showing two slightly nervous Warner Bros. executives, worrying about the censors. The first memo was sent by studio boss Jack Warner to producer Hal Wallis regarding Convention City and the second is from Wallis to director Michael Curtiz re: Mandalay, the latter film released just before the enforcement of the Code. 

 

DATE: October 5, 1933

SUBJECT: "Convention City"

TO: Mr. Wallis

FROM: Mr. Warner

We must put brassieres on Joan Blondell and make her cover up her breasts because, otherwise, we are going to have these pictures stopped in a lot of places. I believe in showing their forms but, for Lord's sake, don't let those bulbs stick out. I'm referring to her gown in Convention City.

J.L. Warner

[*More about Convention City, see the note at the bottom of this post.]

 

_____

 

DATE: October 21, 1933
SUBJECT: "Mandalay" 

TO: Curtiz
FROM: Hal Wallis

I am just looking at your dailies ...

Generally your stuff is beautiful and I don't want to start limiting you and restricting you ...

However, when you show Kay Francis in the bathtub with [Ricardo] Cortez in the shot and a close-up of Kay Francis in the tub and show her stepping out of the tub and going into Cortez's arms, then you get me to the point where I am going to have to tell you to stick to the script and not to do anything else. For God's sake, Mike, you have been making pictures long enough to know that it is impossible to show a man and a woman who are not married in a scene of this kind. The situation itself is censorable enough with Cortez and Francis living [together] ...

Hal Wallis 

Source: Inside Warner Bros. (1935-1951) (1985), selected and edited by Rudy Behlmer.  

Above: The scene (as described in the memo) was changed, with Cortez now leaning in through an open hatchway and kissing Francis (out of the bath and wrapped in a towel) through the hatchway, with the final shot of Francis' bare legs and the towel landed on the floor. While the scene was still risky, it got accepted.  However, when Warners applied for a certificate of approval to re-issue Mandalay in 1936, the application was denied. Below: Kay Francis fabulously dressed by Orry-Kelly in a scene from Mandalay.

*Note: 
Convention City, directed by Archie Mayo and starring Joan Blondell, Dick Powell, Mary Astor, Guy Kibbee and Adolphe Menjou, is considered a lost film. When it was released in 1933, the film was successful at the box-office but, due to its racy content, was taken out of circulation once the Code was enforced. The story of the film revolves around the convention of the Honeywell Rubber Company in Atlantic City, with the company's employees being mostly preoccupied with booze and sex. In 1936, Warner Bros. tried to re-release the film but PCA's Joseph Breen considered it beyond redemption and rejected the studio's request for a seal of approval. Subsequently, studio boss Jack Warner reportedly ordered the prints and negatives of the film to be destroyed. According to this interesting article by Ron Hutchinson of The Vitaphone Project, however, not all prints were destroyed and prints of the film were shown as late as WWII. Hutchinson seems convinced a print still exists but "we just have to find it!". At any rate, until that happens (if it ever will happen), Convention City remains one of the more coveted lost Hollywood films. Leading lady Joan Blondell once said about it: "That is the raunchiest thing there has ever been. We had so many hysterically dirty things in it ..." (Incidentally, the original screenplay of the film still exists and can be found in the Warner Bros. script archives.)

Dick Powell, Joan Blondell and Guy Kibbee in Convention City

Nothing but praise for it as a hilariously funny movie

Billy Wilder's Some Like it Hot (1959) was released at a time when the Production Code was slowly dying. In 1954, PCA's director Joseph Breen (a strict censor for two decades) had been replaced by his deputy director Geoffrey Shurlock who was far less strict than Breen, giving filmmakers room to be more creative. The Catholic Legion of Decency, however, strongly objected to Some Like it Hot, because of its subject matter of transvestism, hints at homosexuality and lesbianism, and double-entendre dialogue.

On 5 March 1959, Reverend Thomas F. Little of the Legion of Decency, wrote a letter to Geoffrey Shurlock, listing his objections to Some Like it Hot, which he felt "bordered on condemnation". Shurlock replied a few days later, apparently not agreeing with the Reverend, while referring to trade paper reviews which called the film "hilariously funny". Incidentally, both letters contradict some of the things I've read on the internet regarding Some Like it Hot. According to several sources, the Legion of Decency condemned the film giving it a C-rating, but Father Little's letter clearly shows that his rating was B (morally objectionable in part). Also, many sources say that Some Like it Hot was released without the approval of the PCA. However, Shurlock's letter (written before the film's actual release date) gives the impression that he didn't object to the film at all. 

The letters will be shown in transcript only; click here for the original images.

Source: oscars.org

Dressed in drag, Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon in a publicity still for Some Like it Hot.

March 5, 1959

Mr. Geoffrey Shurlock,

Motion Picture Association of America

8480 Beverly Boulevard,

Hollywood 48, California.

Dear Geoff:

For your information and, I am sure, interested reaction the Legion on March 12 rated the United Artists film SOME LIKE IT HOT, starring Marilyn Monroe, as B (Morally Objectionable in Part for All), with the following objection noted:

¨This film, though it purports to be a comedy, contains screen material elements that are judged to be seriously offensive to Christian and traditional standards of morality and decency. Furthermore, its treatment dwells almost without relief on gross suggestiveness in costuming, dialogue and  situations. ¨

Since the initiation of the triple A method of classifying films in December 1957, this film has given the Legion the greatest cause for concern in its evaluation of Code Seal pictures. As you can well imagine, it bordered on condemnation. The subject matter of ¨transvestism¨ naturally leads to complications; in this film there seemed to us to be clear inferences of homosexuality and lesbianism. The dialogue was not only ¨double entendre¨ but outright smut. The offense in costuming was obvious. 

In the present atmosphere of our society, which seems to be calling for censorship and controls, this picture will only add fuel to the fire. 

I thought that you would be sincerely interested in our observations. Perhaps they might act as a stop gap in future decisions with which you are faced. 

With best personal wishes to yourself and the staff, I remain

Cordially Yours,

(signed)

Very Rev. Msgr. Thomas F. Little

Executive Secretary

__________

March 18, 1959 

Very Rev. Msgr. T. F. Little

National Legion of Decency

453 Madison Avenue

New York 22, N.Y.

Geoffrey Shurlock

Dear Father Little,

In reply to yours of March 5th, we have been scanning very carefully the trade paper reviews of SOME LIKE IT HOT. To date we have received eight such reports, including two from Martin Quigley´s publications. 

Not a single reviewer has been in the slightest way critical of this film, or questioned either its morality or its taste. So far there is simply no adverse reaction at all; nothing but praise for it as a hilariously funny movie. 

I am not suggesting, of course, that there are not dangers connected with a story of this type. But girls dressed as men, and occasionally men dressed as women for proper plot purposes, has been standard theatrical fare as far back as AS YOU LIKE IT and TWELFTH NIGHT, and perhaps further. The classic example of a man masquerading in woman´s clothes without offense is CHARLEY´S AUNT, which has been a hilarious hit for three-quarters of a century.

It seems to boil down to the fact that if this material is handled properly it can and will be accepted. Of course, if it is handled improperly it could be enormously objectionable. But as indicated, eight reviewers to date have seen this film and their consensus without reservation is that it has been treated acceptably.

We can only trust that the general public will be of the same mind, and that the alarm the Legion very understandably expressed may prove in the long run to be no worry at all. At any rate, that is the hope we are nourishing. 

We are of course not defending the two exaggerated costumes worn by the leading lady; but we gathered these were not your major concern.

With kindest regards from the staff,

I am,

Very sincerely yours, 

GEOFFREY M. SHURLOCK 

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.