Harrison's Reports (1946)

156B HARRISON S REPORTS September 28, 1946 (J) On April 4, Eric Johnston, head of the producers' association, gave an interview to the trade press and talked about the method that will be used by the Motion Picture Export Corporation to divide the profits from foreign sales. Giving an account of that interview in the April 5 issue of Motion Picture Daily, Gene Arnecl, that paper's reporter, said also the following: "Veering to censorship, Johnston stated that the Motion Picture Association has made it known to all producers, directors and writers that 'rigid adherence to the Production Code is necessary in order to earn Code approval." (Editor's Note: Though this item has no direct bearing on Breen, it has an indirect bearing; it establishes the general atmosphere of those days to lecture the producers on the Code violations.) (4) Upon his return from England, Joe Breen was interviewed by a motion picture writer of one of the New York newspapers. This writer told me that he asked Breen whether the statement that he had been lecturing the Hollywood producers on Code violations is true or not, and Breen was compelled to make the following admission: "I have been doing that every year." (I am sorry that I cannot divulge my friend's name; Breen understands the reasons fully, for at one time he was a newspaper man himself.) (5) Mr. William H. Mooring, writing in the August issue of Extension, a Catholic paper published in Chicago, said partly the following: "Following some brisk Catholic action, in which I was privileged to play a part, correspondence passed between headquarters of the National Legion of Decency and the Motion Picture Producers' Association. "The Legion vigorously directed attention to postwar deterioration of moral standards in motion pictures, and Eric Johnston, for the industry, admitted that this trend was the cause of grave concern among the more alert film producers. "Joseph I. Breen, head of the Production Code Administration, but for whose diplomatic handling of most difficult problems films would be much worse than they are, paid personal visits to all the leading Hollywood producers. He warned them that unless they halted postwar laxity toward the provisions of the Code, vigilance in many influential quarters, not least of all the Catholic Church, might quickly embroil the film industry in the meshes of a federal system of censorship. . . ." Notice what Mr. Mooring says: He has read correspondence and knows that Breen paid personal visits to all the leading Hollywood producers, warning them against the violations of the code. Can we blame Will H. Hays for these violations? Of course not; Eric Johnston has taken over his post. Can we blame Eric Johnston for them? Of course not — he has been head of the producers' association for only a short time, and naturally is not acquainted with the details thoroughly. Besides, he has kept Breen on the job without interruption, and without any diminution of his (Breen's) powers. But suppose, after all this proof, we decide to declare Breen right. Does that make him a hero? No— of course not, for he, as an old newspaperman, knows that a story that appears in a publication is considered true unless it is denied. More than a month elapsed between the time Daily Variety and Boxoffice printed that story and the time that I used it in Harrison's Reports, but Breen had not denied it. Had he spent one-twentieth as much time denying the story as he spent in writing his abusive letter to me, he would have escaped criticism as to the "refresher courses." (On the other accusations and his denials you will have my reply.) But evidently Breen enjoyed having the trade papers say that he was giving the producers lectures — it seems to have pleased his vanity; but just because the story snapped back and hit him in the face, he squeals. Joe Breen says that, not he, but Gordon White, head of the Advertising Advisory Council, is responsible for the approval of film advertising. This reminds me of the sinking of the S. S. Burgundie off the coast of France about fifty years ago after a collision during a fog. When the crew realized that the ship was sinking, they trampled on women and children to get into the life boats so as to save their own skins. This incident, however, had its counterpart just about that time; during maneuvers of the British Fleet in the Agean Sea off the Island of Cyprus, one of the battleships rammed the H.M.S. Victoria (or Queen Victoria — I don't remember the exact name), and when the crew saw that the ship was sinking they, from the highest naval officer to the lowest oiler, stood at attention at their posts, and went down with their ship. But this doe6 not remind me of Joe Breen. Why should Breen have mentioned Gordon White when he knows that White cannot defend himself? If he tried to, his job would not be worth a doughnut. Wouldn't the mention of only the Advertising Advisory Council have sufficed? Joe Breen asks if I don't know that he has nothing to do with advertising, and for that reason I should not have criticized him! Of course I know that advertising is not under his jurisdiction, but when he undertakes to lecture the producers on violations of the Advertising Code, then he should be big enough to take, not only the glory, but also the blame. After all, he holds a political job and must learn to take criticism like a good politician, without whimpering like a baby. But it seems to me as if he can't take it. He is your friend as long as you tell him what a great man he is, but he resents criticism of his work. Joe Breen says that I should have at least stated, "if the Variety story is correct," or, "If the Variety story accurately represents the situation." This is a slick journalistic method, implying that the editor does not have the courage to take the responsibility for his statement. With me, a story is, either accurate, or inaccurate. If it is accurate, I print it, and if I find later that I had been misled, I make amends. For this reason I cannot accept Breen's journalistic advice. Besides, aside from the matter of ethics, I was not obligated either to employ the journalistic method he suggests, or to investigate the Variety story, for, as I have already stated, a story that appears in print is considered true unless denied. And Mr. Breen did not deny it, even though nearly five weeks elapsed between the time the story appeared in Daily Variety and Boxoffice and the time 1 used it in Harrison's Reports. THE LETTER You ask the question: "Where was Breen when Walter Wangcr's script on 'SCARLET STREET' was submitted to his office? And where was he when the picture, after being finished, was sent to his office for reviewing?" The answer to this question is that I was here in Hollywood, tending to my business. In your editorial, you quote an observation made by a lady, employed by the Board of Motion Picture Censors in Atlanta. You make note of the fact that "the picture was codemned" and then proceed to set forth your views about the matter. It is interesting to note, however, that while you have seen fit to quote from Miss Smith and her condemnation of the picture, you do not tell your readers that four members ot the Board of Censors at Atlanta completely disagreed with her viewpoint. You make not the slightest reference to the opinion of the Court in this case, handed down by Judge Bond ALmand, which set aside the decision of the Atlanta Board, and characterized the action as thoroughly illegal. As against your estimate of the picture, as well as that of Miss Smith, Judge Almand stated that "there is overwhelming evidence that the picture is not lewd, licentious, immoral, or detrimental to the health, morals, or good order of the City." What kind of journalism is it that tells only a part of the truth? I note your quotation from Terry Ramsaye's editorial, in which he refers to the picture, "SCARLET STREET," as "a morbid, seamy story dealing with the dregs of humanity." I agree with Mr. Ramsaye in his characterization of this particular picture. Here, again, however, I wonder at the kind of journalistic ethics which motivates your editorial. You select from Mr. Ramsaye's editorial one line, and let it go at that. You pass over the point of Mr. Ramsaye's editorial, which concerned itself with "the inutility of political censorship" and you make no mention of Mr. Ramsaye's observation concerning "SCARLET STREET," and its handling by the New York Board of Censors, about which Mr. Ramsaye observed, "Much of a pother has been had, and to no consequence, save some unwarranted disparagement of the picture. . . ."