Harrison's Reports (1932)

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 Passessions. . 16.00 Canada, Alaska 16.00 Mexico, Spain, Cuba 16.00 Great Britain, New Zealand 16.00 Other Foreign Countries.. 17.50 3Sc a Copy 1440 BROADWAY New York, N. Y. A Motion Picture Reviewing Service by a Former Exhibitor Devoted Exclusiveiy to the Interests of Exhibitors Its Editorial Policy: No Problem Too Big for Its Editorial Columns, if It is to Benefit the Exhibitor. Published Weekly by P. S. HARRISON Editor and Publisher Established July 1,1919 PEnnsylvania 6-6379 Cable Address : Harreports (Bentley Code) A REVIEWING SERVICE FREE FROM THE INFLUENCE OF FILM ADVERTISING Vol. XIV SATURDAY, JUNE 4, 1932 No. 23 TEN YEAPvS OF WILL H. HAYS — Article No. 4 The last principle from the Hays Code of Ethics that was discussed in the third article of this series, which was published last week, was the subheading under “Sex,” which reads : “Adultery, sometimes necessary, for plot material, must not be explicitly treated.” In the treatment of it, I called your attention to the fact that in the Paramount picture “The World and the Flesh” nothing is left to the imagination ; the director, in order to make adultery plain even to children, had the hero unbuckle his belt. I lamented this fact on the ground that George R.incroft is extremely popular with the adolescents, and they flock to his pictures. A sight such as this, then, cannot help having a demoralizing effect upon the youth. Let us now continue the comparison of the promises to the public that were made by the Hays Morality Code and the producers’ accomplishments : In paragraph (c), subdivision 2 (“Scenes of Passion”), there is said ; “Excessive and lustful kissing, lustful embraces, suggestive postures and gestures, are not to be shown.” Have you seen “Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde”? Almost every one of you has. To those who have not seen it let me say that in my career as a reviewer I have not seen in pictures a plainer invitation to sin. The prostitute the hero takes into her room after rescuing her from a brutal fellow lifts her skirt to a point where, in the pre-Code days, it might have invited arrest. Any wonder, then, that most decent people will not let their children go to the picture theatres any longer? Perhaps Mr. Hays thought that that prostitute, by raising her skirt as high as she raised it, stim.ulatcd the “nobler instincts” of the adolescents. And yet the introductory title of that picture, like the introductory titles of all pictures released by members of the Hays organization, carried his seal of purity. Under the heading “OBSCENITY,” the Hays Code says : “Obscenity in word, gesture, reference, joke, suggestion (even when likely to be understood only by part of the audience) is forbidden.” This is, indeed, comical. Have you seen “Polly of the Circus,” the MGM picture? In one part, the heroine, a circus performer, says to the hero, an Episcopalian minister, that if he were married he would have to sleep in the woodshed during Lent ; and in another part, when the minister suggests to her to read the Bible, she asks him if he had meant the “hot” parts of it. Here is the most comical part about this affair : This picture was shown at the Lyric Theatre, a Butterfield-Publix house, at Cadillac, Michigan, to a group of high-school students at a benefit performance. The Cadillac Evening News, published by that live-wire publisher, O. T. Huckle, not only criticized the picture editorially but also wrote to Mr. Hays protesting against the allowing of the characters to make such references. The following is part of the answer Mr. Hays sent him ; “You have been forthright with me in your letter of April first, and I shall try to answer with the same directness. The reply would have come sooner except that I have been occupied with activities and preparation for our tenth annual board meeting. “The references to the woodshed and the ‘hot’ stories of the Bible, from my personal viewpoint, seemed to me to be cases where our Production Code machinery had functioned with less than its usual effectiveness. However, there has been some interesting difference of opinion about the picture. Some observers have maintained that the flippancies were legitimate part of character portrayal. Two central characters in a drama meet — one from the circus, one from the ministry. The groping of the girl toward understanding of her new friend and, of the new world in which he lived, would have been marked by observations colored out of her divergent environment and experience. Nevertheless, I think your point is well-taken.” Notice the slipperiness of the answer : First he admits, by implication, that the woodshed and “hot” parts of the Bible expressions are wrong, and excuses himself by saying that the Code did not function with its “usual effectiveness” ; then he tries, by sophistry, to justify those expressions, by saying that they are character-portrayals; and then he says that Mr. Huckle’s points were well-taken. If these objectionable expressions are character-portrayals, what will become of the “good taste and a regard for the sensibilities of the audience,” which the Code orders under' “Vulgarity”? Such expressions might have been tolerated if the hero were a layman; but he is a clergyman, and the nephew of a bishop. Doesn’t this make any difference with Mr. Hays? That Mr. Hays lacks sincerity in this letter may be evidenced by the fact that he marked his letter “PERSONAL —NOT FOR PUBLICATION.” Mr. Huckle did not write him about a personal matter ; he wrote him about something that affects public welfare. Being a publisher of a newspaper, he is entitled to a candid expression from Mr. Hays on the matter, particularly since he felt that the showing of that picture to youths of his town did much harm to their morals. But Mr. Hays sought to twist the privilege a person enjoys when writing to another person on personal matters and sought to prevent him from publishing his reply. But Mr. Huckle, who knows as much as anybody else, including Mr. Hays, what is confidential and what is not, disregarded the restriction and sent me a copy of it ; my fight against screen advertising has brought about our acquaintance. Let me call your attention to some more violations of this principle of the Code: In the Paramount picture, “The Wiser Sex,” there is a scene showing Lilyan Tashman going into the bedroom to look for her lover ; she finds him under the bed with Claudette Colbert, looking for something. She remarks that she was thankful she did not find them on the bed. In “State’s Attorney,” RKO, the hero (John Barrymore) tells the man who was trying to induce him to divorce his wife : “She is untouched.” In “After Tomorrow,” Fox, Marion Nixon, who takes the part of a decent young girl, offers herself to the hero. In “She Wanted a Millionaire,” the young scoundrel tells the innocent heroine that he wanted her to spend the night with him. In a scene further on, another woman character asks a young man if he had seduced her the time they both became intoxicated, because she did not remember anything. Under the heading “PROFANITY,” the following is said: “Pointed profanity (this includes the words God, Lord, Jesus, Christ — unless reverently — Hell, S. O. B., damn, Cawd), or every other profane or vulgar expression however used, is forbidden.” I remember of pictures in which the crowds roared when actors moved their lips but did not speak, because every one in the audience knew what they were saying. But since I have not made notations, I cannot point them out ; and since I want to conform with the policy I have set down of dealing only with facts I shall ask you to treat the matter as if the producers have complied with the injunctions of this principle, except in one particular — the word “Hell” ; I shall present proof. Paramount is selling a picture this season entitled “Merrily We Go to Hell.” Other titles containing that word were: “Hell Bent for Frisco,” Sono Art; “Hell Bound,” Tiffany; “Jaws of Hell,” Sono Art; “Hell’s Angels,” United Artists; “Doorway to Hell,” Warner Bros. ; “Hell’s Island,” Columbia; “Hell’s House,” State Rights; “Hell Divers,” MGM. Is the use of the word “Hell” justified in any of those instances? {Continued on last page)