We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
by Albert P Delacorte
• Oceans of printer's ink have been spilled in the course of the Duel in the Sun controversy. The Catholic press has carried reams about it. The secular press has, too. Now we want to get into the act — but don't get us wrong. We're taking no sides. We simply want to point a moral, as we see it, to this whole unhappy fiasco.
In March, 1944, David 0. Selznick began the making of Duel in the Sun. After seemingly interminable delays, brought about largely by wartime shortages and strikes, the tremendous job was "finished; and in December, 1946, a purity seal was issued for the film by Joseph I. Breen, administrator of the Production Code Administration, in the following emphatic language: "This is to certify that Vanguard Films, in producing Duel in the Sun, has complied with the selfimposed regulations of the industry to maintain right standards in the production."
So far so good. Now, normally, David Selznick would have immediately rushed a print of the picture to the New York office of the Legion of Decency. (This is not only as a courtesy, but as self-protection, since the rating given pictures by the Legion affects their standing with state censorship boards. A "C" rating from the Legion almost automatically means condemnation by the censorship boards of New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Ohio — which states comprise approximately 50% of the movie-going public.) However, due to the film industry strikes, he had only one Technicolor print assembled, and this he just managed to get under the wire for consideration in the annual Academy Awards.
The film was shown for. the first time just prior to the first of the year, and immediately afterwards a hostile review of it appeared in The Tidings, (Continued on page 85)