Censoring "The Great Gatsby" (1926)

In 1922, following the public outcry against immorality in Hollywood films and the scandals involving some of Hollywood's biggest stars, the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA) was founded. The main goal of this new trade organisation, with former Postmaster General Will Hays at the helm, was to clean up the film industry's bad image. Also, the industry was worried about the increase of city and state censorship boards, fearing that federal censorship was not far away. In order to avoid outside meddling, the MPPDA eventually set up its own censorship guidelines in 1929 -- i.e. the Motion Picture Production Code, to be rigidly enforced from mid-1934 on.

Before Hollywood started censoring its own films, state and local censorship boards decided whether films were fit for screening or not. In 1907, the city of Chicago created the first censorship board in the U.S. and other city boards soon followed. State governments also began to follow suit, with the state of Virginia being the last of seven U.S. states to create its own censorship board in 1922. Because of their different censorship rules, these boards were a major headache to Hollywood -- what was acceptable in one city/state could be unacceptable in another, meaning that studios often had to issue multiple versions of the same film (costs being paid by the studios). 

The man responsible for collecting the complaints of the various censorship boards was Will Hays. It was Hays' task to contact the producers of the films involved and to inform them of the changes that needed to be made. On 15 November 1926, Hays wrote to Jesse Lasky of Famous Players-Lasky Corporation (later Paramount), communicating the views of the Virginia Censor Board regarding Herbert Brenon's The Great Gatsby, the only silent film adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald's novel. The Virginia Board demanded several cuts, including the elimination of certain subtitles, e.g. the suggestive "There are things between Daisy and me which you will never know".

Incidentally, it is known that Scott Fitzgerald and his wife Zelda went to see the film but, being New Yorkers, the version they saw may have been different from the one released in Virginia. In any case, the film was not to their liking and they reportedly walked out on it, with Zelda later describing it as "rotten", "awful" and "terrible". 

The 1926 The Great Gatsby is considered a lost film, only the trailer still exists.

Source: Heritage Auctions

Transcript: 

November 15, 1926

Mr. Jesse L. Lasky

Famous Players-Lasky Corpn.,

485 Fifth Avenue

New York City, N.Y. 

Dear Mr. Lasky:

The word from the Virginia censor board as to cuts in "The Great Gatsby" follows: 

"Eliminate close-up view of girls' legs, grouped around small table set for cocktails; eliminate close-up view of man and woman in bathing suits in suggestive postures on raft; eliminate the two close-up scenes where Jerry and Daisy are shown with skirts so blown by the wind as unduly to expose their legs. Of the several successive scenes showing man lying with his head in lap of Myrtle's sister, eliminate all but one - a four foot flash to carry the sub-title; eliminate that scene in which Myrtle's sister in quickly rising from the couch makes suggestive exposure of underwear. Eliminate scene at close of lovemaking between Myrtle and Tom Buchanan showing him lying on sofa by her. Eliminate sub-title 'There are things between Daisy and me which you will never know'; also sub-title 'Things neither of us can ever forget.' (These sub-titles are suggestive of connubial relations)" 

With kindest personal regards, I am

Sincerely yours,

signed" Will H Hays" 

Above: l-r: Lois Wilson as Daisy Buchanan, Warner Baxter as Jay Gatsby, Hale Hamilton as Tom Buchanan and Neil Hamilton as Nick Carraway in the 1926 silent The Great Gatsby. Below: First chairman of the MPPDA, Will Hays.

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.

An irreparable loss to the motion picture industry

On 14 September 1936, producer and MGM executive Irving Thalberg died of pneumonia at the early age of 37. His premature death shocked the whole film industry. Known as MGM's "Boy Wonder", Thalberg was responsible for many of the studio's earliest successes, including such classics as Greed (1924, co-produced with Erich von Stroheim), Grand Hotel (1932), Mutiny on the Bounty (1935) and A Night at the Opera (1935). Always striving for both commercial success and the highest quality --he was the first man to realise that a good film needed a good script, not only big stars--, Thalberg oversaw the production of more than 400 films during his twelve years at MGM. To achieve the quality he wanted, he introduced several production methods which became standard for the whole industry (including sneak previews to gauge the public's reaction and the re-shooting of scenes). Furthermore, Thalberg created many new stars and helped the careers of established stars, like Norma Shearer who became his wife in 1927. During his lifetime, Thalberg never wanted screen credit as producer; it wasn't until his last picture The Good Earth, which was completed after his death and released in 1937, that he was finally credited on screen. 

Irving Thalberg and Norma Shearer photographed in 1929. The couple was married from 1927 until Thalberg's death in 1936.

The document for this post is not a letter, but a statement to the press issued on the day of Irving Thalberg's death. On 14 September 1936, Will H. Hays, President of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA), addressed the press with the following words.

Source: mppda digital archive

Transcript:

Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America, Inc.

28 West 44th Street 

New York, N.Y.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

MONDAY, SEPT. 14, 1936

STATEMENT BY WILL. H. HAYS

Hollywood, Calif., Sept. 14---Will H. Hays, president of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America, today said:

"The death of Irving Thalberg is an irreparable loss to the motion picture industry. No one can take his place, though others may come to do his work. 

"Brilliant, courageous, a careful workman, who always gave his best, he had the vision and the genius which made him a leader in the industry's constant progress toward the highest levels of art and entertainment. It is a tragedy that he should be taken from us in the very fullness of his youth. For one of his abilities, life offered so much more to do. 

"Such productions as THE BIG PARADE, THE BARRETTS OF WIMPOLE STREET, MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY and ROMEO AND JULIET will stand as monuments to Irving Thalberg, but he was destined for ever finer things.

"He will be a living memory. He had the highest esteem and the deepest affection of everyone in the industry. Through his death the industry has lost one of its foremost figures and I have lost a friend."

Clockwise: Norma Shearer, Irving Thalberg and son; Norma and Irving in July 1936; Will H. Hays, president of the MPPDA; Irving, Norma and Louis B. Mayer at the premiere of "The Great Ziegfeld" on 18 April 1936.

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

Selznick abandons Fritz Lang project

Austrian-born director Fritz Lang decided to make the move to Hollywood in the early 1930s. On 1 June 1934, Lang met with producer David O. Selznick in London (Selznick still worked for MGM at the time) and they agreed to make a film together. However, as their film would be about a crazed group overthrowing the government, the Department of Justice strongly objected to the film being made. In the end, Selznick saw no other alternative than to abandon the project.

The following correspondence took place between Will Hays and David Selznick. As President of the MPPDA (the organisation responsible for the creation of the Production Code), Hays advised Selznick not to proceed with his project. A few days later, Selznick answered Hays' letter saying he would drop the idea altogether. 

Source: mppda digital archive

Transcript:

June 19, 1934.

Mr. David Selznick,

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer-Studios,

Culver City, California.

Dear David:

Following our conversation relative to the picture being considered for Mr. Fritz Lang: Mr. Pettijohn returned from Washington and I am enclosing his original office memorandum to me reporting his talk with the Department of Justice on this subject matter.

It is my reasoned judgment, in which Mr. Pettijohn concurs, that under all the circumstances it would not be wise to proceed with the contemplated picture and I so recommend.

With kindest personal regards, I am

Sincerely yours,

hst.

cc-Mr. Nicholas M. Schenck.

From left to right: David O. Selznick, Will Hays and Fritz Lang

Source: mppda digital archive

Transcript:

June 22, 1934.

General Will Hays

M.P.P. &D. of A., Inc.,
28 West 44th Street,
New York, New York.

Dear General Hays,

I am in receipt of a letter from Charlie Pettijohn stating the Department of Justice's violent objection to the picture idea suggested by Mr. Fritz Lang and proposed through me. I regret exceedingly that there is obviously no other course open to us but to drop the idea, although I think we could have done a real public service. 

Thank you for your co-operation in the matter.

Cordially yours,

David Selznick (signed)

*Note: Charlie Pettijohn who is mentioned in both letters, was the MPPDA's general counsel. Nicholas Schenck who is cc'd in Hays' letter was an important executive at MGM. And David Selznick addresses Will Hays as General, presumably because Hays had been U.S. Postmaster General in the early 1920s. 

David Selznick gives a 'damn'

One of the most famous lines in movie history is without a doubt "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn", spoken by Clark Gable in David O. Selznick's production of "Gone with the Wind" (1939). In 1939, with the Production Code in full swing, use of the word 'damn' was nevertheless strictly forbidden. So how did it get past the censors and end up on the big screen?

Left photo: David O. Selznick; right: Will H. Hays

A few months prior to the release of "Gone with the Wind", Joseph Breen (head of the PCA and responsible for the enforcement of the Code) had disallowed the word 'damn' and wanted it removed from the movie. Alternatives like "I don't give a hoot" or "I just don't care" were considered, but producer David Selznick was adamant about keeping 'damn' in his crucial scene. In a final attempt to get his way, Selznick wrote a letter to Will Hays (Joseph Breen's boss) pleading with him not to forbid 'damn'. Hays proved sensitive to Selznick's arguments. On 1 November 1939 (a month and a half before the film's release), the Production Code was amended. 'Damn' was still forbidden, unless it was "essential and required for portrayal, in proper historical context, of any scene or dialogue based upon historical fact or folklore...or a quotation from a literary work, provided that no such use shall be permitted which is intrinsically objectionable or offends good taste". 

Selznick's fascinating letter to Hays can be read below.

October 20, 1939

Mr. Will H. Hays

Motion Picture Producers & Distributors of America, Inc.

28 West 44th Street

New York, N.Y.

Dear Mr. Hays:

As you probably know, the punch line of "Gone With the Wind", the one bit of dialogue which forever establishes the future relationship between Scarlett and Rhett, is, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."

Naturally I am most desirous of keeping this line and, to judge from the reactions of two preview audiences, this line is remembered, loved and looked forward to by the millions who have read this new American classic. 

Under the code, Joe Breen is unable to give me permission to use this sentence because it contains the word "damn," a word specifically forbidden by the code.

As you know from my previous work with such pictures as "David Copperfield," "Little Lord Fauntleroy," "A Tale of Two Cities," etc., I have always attempted to live up to the spirit as well as the exact letter of the producers' code. Therefore, my asking you to review the case, to look at the strip of film in which this forbidden word is contained, is not motivated by a whim. A great deal of the force and drama of "Gone With the Wind", a project to which we have given three years of hard work and hard thought, is dependent upon that word.

It is my contention that this word as used in the picture is not an oath or a curse. The worst that could be said against it is that it is a vulgarism, and it is so described in the Oxford English Dictionary.  Nor do I feel that in asking you to make an exception in this case I am asking for the use of a word which is considered reprehensible by the great majority of American people and institutions. A canvass of the popular magazines shows that even such moral publications as Woman's Home Companion, Saturday Evening Post, Collier's and the Atlantic Monthly, use this word freely. I understand the difference, as outlined in the code, between the written word and the word spoken from the screen, but at the same time I think the attitude of these magazines toward "damn" gives an indication that the word itself is not considered abhorrent or shocking to audiences.

I do not feel that your giving me permission to use "damn" in this one sentence will open up the flood-gates and allow every gangster picture to be peppered with "damns" from end to end. I do believe, however, that if you were to permit our using this dramatic word in its rightfully dramatic place, in a line that is known and remembered by millions of readers, it would establish a helpful precedent, a precedent which would give to Joe Breen discretionary powers to allow the use of certain harmless oaths and ejaculations whenever in his opinion they are not prejudicial to public morals.

Since we are trying to put "Gone With the Wind" into the laboratory this week, I should appreciate your taking this matter under immediate consideration. Mr. Lowell Calvert, our New York representative, has a print of the scene referred to which will take you, literally, only a few seconds to view. It is not a Movietone print, and must be exhibited with a dummy head, and therefore Mr. Calvert will have to arrange a room that is so equipped for you to see it. However, you may feel it possible to give the consent without viewing the film.

The original of the line referred to is on page 1036 of the novel, "Gone With the Wind," and you might have your secretary secure it for you.

We have been commended by preview audiences for our extremely faithful job on "Gone With the Wind," and practically the only point that has been commented on as being missing is the curious (to audiences) omission of this line. It spoils the punch at the end of this picture, and on our very fade-out gives an impression of unfaithfulness after three hours and forty-five minutes of extreme fidelity to Miss Mitchell's work which, as you know, has become an American Bible. 

Thanking you for your cooperation in this, 

Cordially and sincerely yours,

dos

Blind copies to Mr. Whitney, Mr. Calvert

Source: Harry Ransom Center (click here for the original image)

Note: John Whitney was Selznick's business partner and the film's main investor.