Harrison's Reports (1954)

Entered as second-class matter January 4, 1921, at the post office at New York, New York, under the act of March 3, 1879. Harrison’S Reports Yearly Subscription Rates: United States $15.00 U. S. Insular Possessions. 16.50 Canada 16.50 Mexico, Cuba, Spain 16.50 Great Britain 17.50 .\ustralia. New Zealand, India, Europe, Asia .... 17.50 35c a Copy 1270 SIXTH AVENUE New York 20, N. Y. Published Weekly by Harrison’s Reports, Inc., Publisher A Motion Picture Reviewing Service Devoted Chiefly to the Interests of the Exhibitors P. S. HARRISON, Editor Established July 1, 1919 Its Editorial Policy: No Problem Too Big for Its Editorial Columns, if It is to Benefit the Exhibitor. Circle 7-4622 A REVIEWING SERVICE FREE FROM THE INFLUENCE OF FILM ADVERTISING Vol. xxxvi SATURDAY, JANUARY 30, 1954 No. 5 A STRONG INDICTMENT OF THE CODE ADMINISTRATION Benagoss Productions, Inc., producer of “Act of Love,” the Anatole Litvak picture being distributed by United Artists, is taking “an official position of defying the Advertising Code Administration’s position on several of its ads,” according to Myer P. Beck, the producer’s publicity representative. The picture itself has been granted a Production Code seal, but Gordon White, the Advertising Code Administrator, objects to the line “There’s only a thin line between an act of sin and an act of love,” which is featured in a number of the ads, and the fact that a line-up of prostitutes is shown in the art work of another ad. “We are taking the position that the line is an acceptable one,” stated Beck, “and that inasmuch as the scene of the prostitutes is included in the picture, we are not only entitled but almost obligated to indicate this in the advertising.” In disclosing the position taken by Benagoss Productions, Beck also released the text of a letter sent by Max E. Youngstein, vice-president of United Artists, to Eric Johnston, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, in which he charges that “a different yardstick” is being used with respect to United Artists’ advertising than is being applied to other companies. That the independent producers are not given the same consideration by the MPAA’s Code Administration as are the major producers has long been a contention of Harrison’s Reports, and it has from time to time cited in these columns evidence of the Code Administration’s failure to apply to its major-company members the same standards of decency and good taste that it is demanding of the independent producers. Max Youngstein’s letter to Johnston, dated December 31, 1953, to which Mr. Johnston has not yet made a reply, is a strong indictment of the discriminatory tactics employed by the Code Administration and offers additional evidence that the MPAA is granting to the major companies privileges that are still being denied to the independent producers. The complete text of Mr. Youngstein’s letter follows: “Dr. Mr. Johnston; “Mr. Roger Lewis, our Advertising Manager, has referred to me your letter to him dated December 16th in which you sustain the decision of the Advertising Code Administrator on the advertising for ACT OF LOVE. “I have within recent months had a number of conversations with Mr. Gordon White and have written to him on October 28, 1953 and December 11, 1953 expressing my feelings with regard to the method in which the advertising code is being administered on United Artists’ pictures. “I would suggest that you read the above letters. In these letters I have stated that, in my opinion, a different yardstick is being used with respect to our advertising than is being applied to other companies. The decisions in the ACT OF LOVE appeal reaffirms my belief that this is the situation. “Let me give you a few facts on which I base this conclusion. “I have before me a pressbook on ‘Miss Sadie Thompson.’ There isn’t a single page of the pressbook, beginning with the front cover and right thru the back cover, that doesn’t clearly indicate that ‘Miss Sadie Thompson’ is a prostitute. As a matter of fact the art work has gone to great lengths to make certain that there can be no mistake about this. The walk, the cigarette, the handbag, the clothes all contribute to this result. On the inside cover of the pressbook there is one of the most lascivious stills I have seen on any picture. On the opposite page there is one that runs it a close second. On page 3A there are pieces of copy which read ‘on the prowl in the torrid story of a lady and a hundred men.’ I realize that from a purely grammatical standpoint this sentence can have many meanings but it is not possible to disassociate words from the relationship they bear to the title. The Advertising Code Administrator insists that this principle must be used on the interpretation of the ads on ACT OF LOVE. I do not think anyone will quarrel with the fact that the words ‘Sadie Thompson’ have become synonomous in the American language with the word prostitute. Used in that meaning the sentence has not only sexual overa tones but I would say slightly abnormal overtones. In that same ad there are words ‘sin chaser and dame chaser’, ‘entertainment is her business’ next to a photograph of Miss Hayworth sprawled on a bed in a position definitely indicating that she is not going to sleep. ‘They’re wrestling with sin’ next to a photograph definitely indicating no relationship to any known rehgion. In the pressbook on page 6A, ad mat 211 we have a picture of Miss Hayworth and superimposed on the picture is the copy ‘look who’s coming to our house’. However, when this ad was actually used in the trade papers, as per the attached illustration ‘A’ from Motion Picture Herald, the copy merely read ‘Look who’s coming’. This is not an accidental change. This is calculated usage of a phrase which has a definite obscene meaning to miUions of people in this country. I also attach trade ad marked exhibit ‘B’ from Motion Picture Daily. Once more ‘Miss Sadie Thompson’ is on a bed and the headline is ‘Sadie is no lady’. If she is no lady then what is she under any normal interpretation? There are many other exhibits contained in the pressbook. When you take into consideration the difference in the content of the two films, ACT OF LOVE and ‘Miss Sadie Thompson’ and appraise the two ad campaigns I wonder how anyone can come to the conclusion that the same yardstick was used for both campaigns. “I also attach two exhibits from ‘From Here To Eternity’ marked ‘C’ and ‘D’ showing Miss Donna Reed lying on top of Montgomery Clift with the caption ‘sure she’s nice to him, she’s nice to all of the boys’. One ad appeared in a fan magazine and the other in Film Daily. The average person in the United States has through a concentrated pubheity campaign on the book for over two years been made to understand that Miss Donna Reed is a prostitute. Her character in the picture was somewhat cleaned up but nevertheless left in such a nebulous state of characterization that many people after seeing the picture still were certain that she was a prostitute. With this impression gained from the book what meaning other than an obscene one can be given to the attached advertisement. “May I also refer you to the pressbook on a Universal International picture titled ‘All I Desire’ and specifically to ad mats #204 and 206. In both of these ads there is an illustration of a man and a woman in a very tight embrace The copy reads in one ‘now he knew her as other men had, (Continued on bac\ page)