Harrison's Reports (1946)

1M)L> HAKKISUIN 5 KbPUKIS September 28, 1940 In answer to something that Bogart says, Bacall asks: "Which am I?" Bogart replies: "I can't tell until I see you over a distance of ground." Continuing the race track parlance, Bogart remarks: "I can't tell until I try you in the saddle." The audience roared. The scene is in a taxicab, while Bogart is trailing a car. Female cab driver: "If you need mc again, here's my number." Bogart: "Do you work days or nights?" Female cab driver: "Call me at night; I work days." The scene is in a book shop. Humphrey remarks to the sales girl that he has a bottle of liquor in his hip pocket. The girl says: "What are we waiting for?" She tells him that business for the day is over, goes to the door, locks it, pulls the window shade down, and there is a fade-out. Perhaps I have not given the exact words of the dialogue — you know how difficult it is to remember dialogue. But the sense is correct. Remarking on this picture, Mr. Ruark said in the same column heretofore mentioned: "I love Mr. Chandler, because his dialogue is so warm, but I don't know how he gets away with some of the stuff that is served up for childish amusement in a gangster thing called 'The Big Sleep.' They held this one for a couple of years, and I think I know what delayed it. Some of Mr. Humphrey Bogart's fast chatter with one of his many roundheeled admirers would have shocked a stevedore." Yet Mr. Brcen has the audacity to become indignant! Let me make my position clear: I am, neither a censor, nor a prude, nor am I trying to reform the world. As a matter of fact, I admire Mr. Brecn's liberalism. What I want to know is only this: Why is he not as liberal with the independent producers as he is with the major producers? Why doesn't he use the same yardstick? THE LETTER Here is another sample, from your editorial, of your ignorance and irresponsibility. You state that "if a producer disagrees with Brcen'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 N.eu> Yor\ ofice reversed Mr. Brcen's decisions." Again, I wish to observe that you are talking through your hat. To suggest that there has been "no single instance in which the decision of the Production Code was reversed" is not true. On several occasions the Directors of this Association have "reversed Mr. Breen's decisions." A case in point, is the picture, "THE OUTLAW," which was rejected by the Production Code Administration in 1941, and later approved by the Board of Directors of this Association in New York City. MY REPLY In the editorial under discussion ("Howard Hughes vs. Eric Johnston"), I accused Joseph Breen as favoring the majors but never letting the independents get away with anything. I based that statement on information given me by trustworthy independent producers as well as writers. Unfortunately I cannot disclose their names, for no newspaperman will divulge the source of his information. The reasons are too obvious. Among the accusations that I made against Breen is the fact that, to my knowledge, the New York office of the producers' association never reversed Mr. Breen's decision in rejecting a picture, thus implying that Mr. Breen alone is responsible for the moral tone of the pictures. As a proof, he cites "The Outlaw," and says that, although he rejected it, the New York office reversed him and approved it. It is evident that Mr. Breen has forgotten the fact that "The Outlaw" is an independent picture. And that is what I have been saying all along — that he is hard on the independents, but will swallow major camels, no matter how big. I thank Mr. Breen for his admission. Mr. Breen, in denying that the New York offce had "never reversed him," says: "On several occasions the Directors of this Association have 'reversed Mr. Breen's decisions'." What are those occasions, Mr. Breen? Why don't you name them? Are you afraid? What are you hiding? Did the reversals concern major pictures or independent? I challenge you to name them! THE LETTER In writing about the Universal press book for "UNCLE HARRY," and after setting forth some extracts which you say are part of the press book, you ask the question: "Would Mr. Brcen have approved the wording in this press book if it had been submitted by an independent producer? Let me have an independent producer answer this question." (All of this, of course, despite the fact that I have nothing whatever to do with press books of any kind.) You then quote what you say is a statement made to you recently in Hollywood by an independent producer, who told you "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." You then go on to state, "I asked him why he did not call Breen's attention to this inconsistency, and he replied that he did, and that Breen's answer was: 'Well, the major companies have the means of treating such situations artistically'." I never made any such statement in my life. The statement is utterly and unqualifiedly false. In another part of your editorial you make the charge that "the Production Code Administrator does not give the same consideration to the major producers that he gives to the independents. I deny this statement also. There is not one scintilla of truth in it. I count on you to give this letter the same editorial consideration you gave to your attack upon me. Yours truly, (Signed) JOSEPH I. BREEN MY REPLY Brcen's denial as to the producer's statement is not worth the paper that it is written on, because I know the producer in question to be truthful. Moreover, I have submitted sufficient proof to make further assurances unnecessary. When I was in Hollywood recently, I asked a story editor, a trustworthy and cultured person, to tell me what takes place in Brcen's office, for he has had many dealings with that office and knows. He said to me: "Breen gives the independents' scripts to his subordinates, who use microscopes in going over them, and keeps the major scripts for himself. How many scripts can he read? Besides, the major studios send their slickest salesmen to him to convince him that everything in a script is as it should be." And judging by the sample pictures that I have already discussed, no further proof as to the accuracy of this writer's statement is necessary. * * * No doubt Mr. Breen, when a child, received advice, like the child of every other family in the land, to be tolerant, kindly, generous and charitable. Where is his tolerance, his kindliness to an old friend, his charitableness and his generosity? Didn't those teachings leave any impression on Mr. Breen? His letter seems to indicate that they did not. Even without an answer to my request that he reconsider the matter of publishing his letter, I would have possibly decided not to publish it were it not for the fact that Mr. Breen wrote his letter on June 27, and starts, "I have just finished reading your editorial blast of May 11th. . ." Now, Mr. Breen receives my paper at his home. Ordinarily, he should have received his copy of Harrison's Reports not later than May 16. And yet he states that he had just finished reading it. Even if, by some chance, his copy was either lost or delayed, Mr. Breen must have received several telephone calls directing his attention to my May 1 1 editorial. What pressure was brought on him to send me an abusive reply? And this is the reason why I was not willing to forget the matter. If I had forgotten it, Mr. Breen might have said that my declarations that I make amends in Harrison's Reports when I unwittingly make an erroneous statement are false, pointing out to the fact that I failed to print his letter, and I would have had no way of making a defense. In case Mr. Breen wants to make a further reply to these statements, he should employ dignified language and not allow his momentary feelings to overrule his judgment. After all. a person can never be considered civilized until he learns how to control his temper.