Harrison's Reports (1946)

76 HARRISON'S REPORTS May 11, 1946 pendents, I shall, for a moment, digress to answer Mr. Wanger's hypothetical question by bringing forward the statement of a person who is not a censor, but an everyday decent person. I am referring to Terry Ramsaye, editor of Motion Picture Herald. In an editorial that appeared in the Herald's February 2 issue, Mr. Ramsaye, discussing "Scarlet Street," said partly the following: "The picture is a morbid, seamy story dealing with the dregs of humanity ..." And the review in Harrison's Reports said: It is a "tale about a mild-mannered, middle-aged cashier, whose naive involvement with an unscrupulous prostitute and her vile procurer drives him to robbery and murder. ... It flouts openly the principles of morality and the boundaries of good taste as established by the Production Code." Where was Joe Breen when the script of "The Corn is Green" was submitted to his office? And where was he when the picture was sent to him for reviewing? Does he know that in this picture there is implied a seduction? And a seduction, not out of love — you may forgive two young people, madly in love with each other, for forgetting themselves; but this is an unadulterated sordid seduction, the kind that Joe Breen would not tolerate in an independent picture. I have had many talks with independent producers in my several visits to Hollywood, and I speak from knowledge. In the Variety interview mentioned in this article, Mr. Breen condemned the producers' tendency of working around, not only themes, but also advertising. If I had been present when he made his remarks on advertising, I would have been inclined to look him straight in the eye and ask: "Did your department pass on the press book of "The Strange Affair of Uncle Harry"? I am sorry to have to pick on a second Universal picture, but it illustrates the point most forcefully. I am referring to "Uncle Harry." I looked up the special press sheet, which was naturally approved by the producers' association before being printed, and found the following: Ad Mat No. 402 shows a picture of the hero's sister reclining over the head of the hero. The wording on top is: " . . . and she's his sister!" Below there is the following wording: "The whispered words that shattered a scornful bond — drove a man to murder — and stripped to trembling nakedness the strangest part of a woman's soul!" Ad Mat No. 301 shows the hero and his sister with heads together, and the wording reads: "Brother and Sister . . . whose intimate secret was everyone's gossip . . . whose strange devotions could only lead them to the gallows." Ad Mat No. 405 has this wording: "A woman torn by emotions that incensed her own brother with the desire to KILL!" I could go on quoting more similar wording, but I believe that what I have quoted is enough to prove the point. All this wording, together with the posed photos, lead one to believe that there is a sex relationship between brother and sister — a revolting implication, although no such relationship exists in the story. And what makes that suggestion more conclusive is this: The title of the stage play on which the picture has been founded was plain "Uncle Harry," whereas the advertising department of Universal added the phrase, "The Strange Affair of." That phrase is not a part of the title, but merely supplementary to it. Yet, the effect is the same as if it were part of the title. ' Would Mr. Breen have approved the wording in this press sheet if it had been submitted by an independent producer? Let me have an independent producer answer this question. I was in Hollywood recently and I had a talk with one of them on the same subject. He told me that Breen objected to certain situations in some stories he contemplated producing although, he said, Breen approved similar situations in stories submitted by the major producers. I asked him why he did not call Breen's attention to this inconsistency, and he replied that he did, but that Breen's answer was: "Well, the major companies have the means of treating such situations artistically." It is, in my opinion, a thought such as this that has made Mr. Breen swallow major camels but choke on independent morsels. Why should Mr. Breen have carried on for the producers "refresher courses" on the code if he and his staff had done their duty? Where is he when the code is violated? And why should he allow violations to go through when he has the power to stop them? Perhaps some of you, readers of this paper, are unfamiliar with the fact that Mr. Breen can reject anything that offends good taste or in any way violates the code's provisions, and if a producer disagrees with Breen's decision he can appeal to the New York office. In such an event, the New York office has the final word. But in all these years I do not recall a single instance in which the New York office reversed Mr. Breen's decisions. Under the circumstances, his "teacherish" admonition to the producers to stop "skirting" the code is a fine bit of comedy. As it has already been stated, Harrison's Reports is in favor of any constructive movement aimed at raising the moral standards of the screen. It certainly does not condone pictures like "The Outlaw," whose appeal is directed, not to one's emotions, but to one's sex passions; nor does it condone the use of the type of advertising that Mr. Hughes' is employing to attract people to the box-office. But the point in question here is, neither that Mr. Hughes has produced an undesirable picture, nor that he is using questionable exploitation methods, but that the producers' association, by failing to apply to its major-company members the 6ame standards of decency that it is demanding of Mr. Hughes and other independent producers, has forfeited the right to demand of them strict observance of the provisions of the code. And that is the reason why Mr. Hughes is now defying them. Unlike most independent producers, Mr. Hughes, being a multi-millionaire, is able to give Eric Johnston, as head of the Motion Picture Association, a battle, and he may find that his association's do-asTsay-not-as-I-do attitude will weight heavily against it when Mr. Hughes presents his facts in court. I fear that Mr. Johnston has caught a bear by the tail. "In Fast Company" with the Bowery Boys (Monogram, no release date set; time, 63 mm.) This second picture in the new "Bowery Boys" series is not as good as the first one; it may, however, satisfy those who find the antics of Leo Gorcey and his pals amusing, despite the commonplace script. Others may find it tiresome, for it is a rehash of the boys' typical misadventures, offering a trite plot, forced comedy situations, and considerable nonsensical action. As is usual in these pictures, one or two sequences are filled with rough-and-tumble melodramatic action that is pretty exciting although far-fetched: — When he refuses to sell his three cabs to Douglas Fowley, manager of a large cab company, Frank Marlowe is injured in an accident engineered by Fowley. Charles D. Brown, a priest, persuades Leo Gorcey to drive one of Marlowe's cabs so that the injured man's family would still have an income. When Fowley's drivers sabotage Gorcey's efforts to get fares, Gorcey enlists the aid of his pals (Bobby Jordan, Huntz Hall, and Billy Benedict). Marjorie Woodworth, working for Fowley, lures Gorcey to an ambush, where he is beaten and his cab wrecked by hoodlums. Together with his pals, Gorcey goes to the mansion of Paul Harvey, owner of the large cab company, to appeal for mercy, but their rowdiness costs them an opportunity to state their case. Learning of the boys' experiences, Jane Randolph, Harvey's daughter, arranges for Gorcey to get her father as a fare so that he could tell him of Fowley's gangster methods to promote his company. Harvey becomes fully convinced when his own drivers attempt to wreck Gorcey's cab while he and his daughter are passengers. He joins forces with Gorcey and his pals, and, after giving Fowley and his henchmen a thrashing and sending them to jail, appoints Marlowe, the luckless independent, as manager to replace Fowley. Edmond Seward, Tim Ryan, and Victor Hammond wrote the screen play, Jan Grippo produced it, and Del Lord directed it. The cast includes Judy Clark and others. Unobjectionable morally.