Photoplay (Jul - Dec 1938)

HAT HOLLYW HINKING Photoplay dared1 Hollywood men and women to answer vital questions on virtue, romance, marital adjustments, birth control, divorce. They accepted the challenge. Here are their answers ILLUSTRATION BY JOHN FLO H ERTY, JR. BY MARIAN RHEA THIS is a new kind of story about Hollywood. It has nothing to do with the casting of "Gone With The Wind." It is not concerned with Darryl Zanuck's latest "find," nor the sex appeal of Hedy Lamarr, nor the box-office returns on "Snow White." Instead, it describes a remarkable dare which Photoplay made to Hollywood . . . and what happened thereupon. "We dare you, Hollywood, to put aside your shop talk, your gossip, your glamour tales, your success stories for discussion of something different," Photoplay said. "We dare you to tell us what you think about such human problems as virtue, romance, marital adjustments, birth control and divorce." And Hollywood accepted the challenge. For Photoplay's benefit (and yours), it discarded reticence, courageously answering as blunt a set of questions as was ever propounded in a filmland interview. This interview was conducted by means of a questionnaire. Selecting a group representing a large and important percentage of the four hundred stars and other players under contract to various Hollywood studios, Photoplay submitted a copy to each. "We will keep your identity a secret," Photoplay promised. "In exchange for this anonymity, please be honest." The result was interesting. More than that, r it was enlightening. It revealed a Hollywood that knows its own mind and how to use it. I HE first half of Photoplay's questionnaire dealt with problems of love and marriage. The first question was: "Do you believe that all persons should be required by law to submit to a physical examination before marriage?" Of the women thus questioned, eighty per cent answered yes; while the men agreed unanimously that all persons contemplating marriage not only should be examined beforehand, but prevented from said marriage if found physically or mentally unfit. "Tough on the individual, maybe, but fine for humanity," one straight-thinking actor wrote. Incidentally, he is a top-ranking star. "Such a law would act as a warning to youngsters contemplating 'wild oats'," wrote another. A third agreed that an examination should be made but suggested sterilization rather than prohibition of marriage as the correct solution. The comments of the feminine affirmants were much the same. "Children suffering from hereditary ailments make me want to commit murder," one wrote. "Such a law would lessen these cases." Many of the twenty per cent who registered against such a plan gave "violation of personal rights" as the reason for their stand. "The government meddles in personal affairs Promised that their identifies would be kept secret, the stars discard reticence to answer as blunt a set of questions as was ever put before them too much. To force a self-respecting person — • especially a woman — to submit to s^jch an examination would be an outrage," one protested. A second, a famous star still unmarried, offered this interesting comment: "Please! Leave something to our consciences, lest they rot with disuse!" UO you believe in sex instruction before marriage?" was the next question. To it, both men and women made unanimous answer: "Yes!" "It is sensible and vital to future happiness," one star wrote. "Yes, it should be compulsory and there would be fewer divorces as a result of such knowledge," wrote a second. "Yes! If sex were less a bugaboo, we'd all be better off," insisted still another. "Do you condone an indiscretion before marriage in case of real love?" was Photoplay's next question. Among the women who answered, sixty-two and one-half per cent said yes; among the men, only fifty per cent. Many made comment — varied, vehement, to the point. "Certainly I condone it!" wrote one important star. "For one thing, frequently there are family and financial reasons which make it wise to delay legalization of marriage." Another, a young contract player, qualified her affirmative answer. "I am glad you say 'condone'," she wrote. "Yes, I 'condone' it for someone else, but I wouldn't believe in it for myself. If I cared that much for a man, I should want to marry him. And if he didn't care that much for me — well, all I've seen of these 'without benefit of clergy' alliances have been tragic in the end — for the woman." A third's answer was: "Tolerate, but do not (Continued on page 89) 17