Hello Mr. LaSalle, first I must apologize for not having read any of your books. I'm a guy that has a wide range of interests so I can't read/see everything LOL
Anyways this was a question I posed on another message board "cough TCM cough" and thought i'd get a more or less expert's opinion. First though I will ask a pretty basic question that I think most here know the answer to but which I don't.
1) What film or films eventually got the Hays Code enacted in the first place? Was it one or a number of films that was the tipping point or was it just a matter of so many films being offensive or lewd to the point that they just had to step in and do it.
2) What if the Pre-Code era had continued to go on unabated, how would American cinema have turned out? Would it be a lot like today or would it take on a form that's more closely related to European cinema.
Thanks for taking my, and others questions.
Welcome to Mick LaSalle
Greetings Mr. LaSalle:
I thoroughly enjoy your movie reviews, Chronicle podcasts and also your blog, which I have followed nearly since its inception. I think you're a fantastic writer with a good sense of humor and you certainly seem to know your stuff when it comes to movies.
I know that you've mentioned writing another book, and would love to see a screenplay written by you...especially a comedic romance...you seem perfect for the genre. Any plans to do so?
Thank you for your time!
I thoroughly enjoy your movie reviews, Chronicle podcasts and also your blog, which I have followed nearly since its inception. I think you're a fantastic writer with a good sense of humor and you certainly seem to know your stuff when it comes to movies.
I know that you've mentioned writing another book, and would love to see a screenplay written by you...especially a comedic romance...you seem perfect for the genre. Any plans to do so?
Thank you for your time!
-
SSO Admins
- Administrator
- Posts: 810
- Joined: April 5th, 2007, 7:27 pm
- Contact:
Welcome to our site. Glad to have you.
My first question is somewhat theoretical. Pre-code movies were a response to the changing social climate, with new morals and mores taking the place of the traditional Victorian ones.
But they were also, I believe, technological, with the rise of sound making the dialog of primary importance, even over the visuals.
So my question is how you weight the influence of the social and technological factors as forming the pre-code era. Even with changing social structures, would they have been possible as silent films?
My first question is somewhat theoretical. Pre-code movies were a response to the changing social climate, with new morals and mores taking the place of the traditional Victorian ones.
But they were also, I believe, technological, with the rise of sound making the dialog of primary importance, even over the visuals.
So my question is how you weight the influence of the social and technological factors as forming the pre-code era. Even with changing social structures, would they have been possible as silent films?
Unaccustomed as I am to asking questions...
Hello Mr. LaSalle:
My question concerns a theory I have regarding the repeal of Prohibition in December 1933 and the installation of the movie code in July 1934. Do you think there's any connection? Do you think the idea of a Code had more traction because of the perceived threat of loosened morality in the wake of legalized liquor?
Thank you!
My question concerns a theory I have regarding the repeal of Prohibition in December 1933 and the installation of the movie code in July 1934. Do you think there's any connection? Do you think the idea of a Code had more traction because of the perceived threat of loosened morality in the wake of legalized liquor?
Thank you!
Ok, lots of questions to get to. Pardon me if the answers end up seeming abrupt. That's not how I want to sound or how I feel as I write them.
Feaito. TCM does have the complete version of MERRY WIDOW, and I hope when Criterion releases its Lubitsch set in February they use the correct full version. Knowing Criterion, they will.
Fave pre-Codes? Plenty. Tons. But offhand what comes to mind are DESIGN FOR LIVING, QUEEN CHRISTINA, GOLD DIGGERS OF 1933, DIVORCEE, FREE SOUL, RED-HEADED WOMAN -- but I could go on and on.
I haven't seen the uncut MATA HARI. I would definitely like to. If restored, that would be a very good pre-Code. As it stands, it's the 1938 version. I'd like to see them restore MATA HARI and have them put it on a FORBIDDEN HOLLYWOOD collection. That would eliminate the expense of having to release it separately. Hey, that's an idea -- I think I'll mention that.
LOVE ME TONIGHT exists only in a cut version. Myrna Loy had a verse of a song cut -- one she sang in a see-through gown. The verse and the gown no longer exist. (It was cut AFTER the Code for release during the Code era.
Jeanette MacDonald was destroyed by the code, not in terms of popularity, but artistically. At least she could sing. Shearer was destroyed, kay Francis, Hopkins, West, Crawford. Why do you think all the women became box office poison? Their movies weren't any fun any more.
MISSGODDESS -- I picked the cover photos for both books. Initially there was some resistance to the Gable picture, and then, after I gave up, they came back to me and decided that was the way to go. I knew I wanted Gable because I wanted to sell a few books, and I thought he was my best bet.
(MORE LATER)
Feaito. TCM does have the complete version of MERRY WIDOW, and I hope when Criterion releases its Lubitsch set in February they use the correct full version. Knowing Criterion, they will.
Fave pre-Codes? Plenty. Tons. But offhand what comes to mind are DESIGN FOR LIVING, QUEEN CHRISTINA, GOLD DIGGERS OF 1933, DIVORCEE, FREE SOUL, RED-HEADED WOMAN -- but I could go on and on.
I haven't seen the uncut MATA HARI. I would definitely like to. If restored, that would be a very good pre-Code. As it stands, it's the 1938 version. I'd like to see them restore MATA HARI and have them put it on a FORBIDDEN HOLLYWOOD collection. That would eliminate the expense of having to release it separately. Hey, that's an idea -- I think I'll mention that.
LOVE ME TONIGHT exists only in a cut version. Myrna Loy had a verse of a song cut -- one she sang in a see-through gown. The verse and the gown no longer exist. (It was cut AFTER the Code for release during the Code era.
Jeanette MacDonald was destroyed by the code, not in terms of popularity, but artistically. At least she could sing. Shearer was destroyed, kay Francis, Hopkins, West, Crawford. Why do you think all the women became box office poison? Their movies weren't any fun any more.
MISSGODDESS -- I picked the cover photos for both books. Initially there was some resistance to the Gable picture, and then, after I gave up, they came back to me and decided that was the way to go. I knew I wanted Gable because I wanted to sell a few books, and I thought he was my best bet.
(MORE LATER)
TEMPLE DRAKE is definitely a recommendation, twisted, sick and fun, but it's hard to find. Paramounts aren't easy to come by. I used to hope Ted Turner would buy Paramount.
BOGIE -- No one film or couple of films brought on the Production Code (the phrase "Hays Code" is kind of a misnomer, since he had nothing to do with it and actually wasn't a bad guy). But probably the most important film toward galvanizing opposition was THE SIGN OF THE CROSS (1932). That became a rallying point.
What would movies be like today without the Code having been imposed? They would in many ways be the same as they are today, but the neurosis surrounding sex would be gone. There was no neuirosis surrounding sex in the pre-Codes. With sex, we'd be more like the Europeans than we are now.
HANNAANNA -- No interest in writing screenplays. Big interest in writing novels. And also another non-fiction book. I want to get started on that soon, like this week.
Jondaris -- Pre-Codes probably would have been pre-Code even without sound, because you can see movies loosening up in some of the late silents like OUR MODERN MAIDENS and the hybrid WEARY RIVER. However, sound definitely pushed it along, not only from the standpoint of language, but also the literal and literalizing nature of sound made movies more realistic and more prone to showing things as they are. And the truth usually needs censoring.
LE TIGRE -- There really is no connection to the repeal of Prohibition and the coming of the Code. The people who wanted to impose the Code were trying and trying and trying and trying and trying from 1929 on. And curiously, the people in government that were sympathetic to their cause were often the people against Prohibition. They were the Democrats, who didn't see anything wrong with regulating movies in the same way they were taking steps to regulate business. In all the reading and research I've done, in no fan magazine, no internal memo, no sealed file did anyone ever link the two, so there really is nothing there.
HOWEVER, there is a definite connection to the social attitude toward authority found in Pre-Code movies and the EXISTENCE of Prohibition. MOre than the Depression, Prohibition is what made Americans disrespect and distrust authority. That is to say, in terms of the influence exerted on pre-Code films. The Depression only enters into the Pre-Codes from mid-1932 on and not really until 1933. Before that, the anger surrounds Prohibition.
BOGIE -- No one film or couple of films brought on the Production Code (the phrase "Hays Code" is kind of a misnomer, since he had nothing to do with it and actually wasn't a bad guy). But probably the most important film toward galvanizing opposition was THE SIGN OF THE CROSS (1932). That became a rallying point.
What would movies be like today without the Code having been imposed? They would in many ways be the same as they are today, but the neurosis surrounding sex would be gone. There was no neuirosis surrounding sex in the pre-Codes. With sex, we'd be more like the Europeans than we are now.
HANNAANNA -- No interest in writing screenplays. Big interest in writing novels. And also another non-fiction book. I want to get started on that soon, like this week.
Jondaris -- Pre-Codes probably would have been pre-Code even without sound, because you can see movies loosening up in some of the late silents like OUR MODERN MAIDENS and the hybrid WEARY RIVER. However, sound definitely pushed it along, not only from the standpoint of language, but also the literal and literalizing nature of sound made movies more realistic and more prone to showing things as they are. And the truth usually needs censoring.
LE TIGRE -- There really is no connection to the repeal of Prohibition and the coming of the Code. The people who wanted to impose the Code were trying and trying and trying and trying and trying from 1929 on. And curiously, the people in government that were sympathetic to their cause were often the people against Prohibition. They were the Democrats, who didn't see anything wrong with regulating movies in the same way they were taking steps to regulate business. In all the reading and research I've done, in no fan magazine, no internal memo, no sealed file did anyone ever link the two, so there really is nothing there.
HOWEVER, there is a definite connection to the social attitude toward authority found in Pre-Code movies and the EXISTENCE of Prohibition. MOre than the Depression, Prohibition is what made Americans disrespect and distrust authority. That is to say, in terms of the influence exerted on pre-Code films. The Depression only enters into the Pre-Codes from mid-1932 on and not really until 1933. Before that, the anger surrounds Prohibition.
-
feaito
Thanks for answering my questions Mick.micklas wrote:Feaito. TCM does have the complete version of MERRY WIDOW, and I hope when Criterion releases its Lubitsch set in February they use the correct full version. Knowing Criterion, they will.
Sadly, as far as it has been advertised Criterion's Release will only include Lubitsch's musicals made at Paramount (& now owned by Universal), not "The Merry Widow"
.Now that you mention "Design for Living", I have read that some critics have this version in low regard, due to its lack of faithfulness to its source, Noel Coward's play. I have read that there's little Coward left. It also hasn't been liked that March and Cooper are just too American to play what originally were two "sophisticated" Englishmen.
I don't agree with them at all and I find it one of the most deliciously mischievous Pre-Code comedies ever made. I think that the three leads work excellently together and that Lubitsch gets the film going swiftly. What are your views on this marvelous film?
Another question: I have never seen "The Story of Temple Drake", but I've read that it's superior than the 1961 remake "Sanctuary". Is the 1933 version as sordid as it's been said? I have even know people that today reject the possibility of viewing this film, due to the sordidness of its subject, especially the idea of a woman enjoying being raped. What do you think of the issues that were raised by this particular film?
Thanks in advance for your answers.
-
jdb1
Hello, Mick.
Last October we had a discussion here about the actress Mae Clarke, who we saw on TCM in Waterloo Bridge and Public Enemy (also briefly in The Flying Tigers). I was fascinated by her performance in Waterloo Bridge, and did some research on her, finding to my dismay that there wasn't very much. She peaked in the 30s, had many mental problems, and spent the rest of her career in the background in movies and on TV.
I came across I book called Featured Player: An Oral Biography of Mae Clarke, compiled by James Curtis. In it, Clarke made the statement that she didn't really pursue an acting career, but rather that "things just happened" to her. My impression from reading this book was that this was not the case. Do you have any insights to share about this talented but very troubled actress?
Last October we had a discussion here about the actress Mae Clarke, who we saw on TCM in Waterloo Bridge and Public Enemy (also briefly in The Flying Tigers). I was fascinated by her performance in Waterloo Bridge, and did some research on her, finding to my dismay that there wasn't very much. She peaked in the 30s, had many mental problems, and spent the rest of her career in the background in movies and on TV.
I came across I book called Featured Player: An Oral Biography of Mae Clarke, compiled by James Curtis. In it, Clarke made the statement that she didn't really pursue an acting career, but rather that "things just happened" to her. My impression from reading this book was that this was not the case. Do you have any insights to share about this talented but very troubled actress?
-
SSO Admins
- Administrator
- Posts: 810
- Joined: April 5th, 2007, 7:27 pm
- Contact:
I hope I can make this question make sense in the brief time I have to post.
One important difference that I noted between the two books was that the first was more about the women and their films, while the second spent more time on the social issues that surrounded the pre-code era. To some degree that makes sense, as some of the issues (WWI, the Depression) were likely felt more keenly by men than women.
So my question is how you feel that those male-centric issues affected the parts available to women? To what extent was the war a factor in the liberation of women in films? Why did we not see pressure for a loosening of the strictures on women in the post-WWII era?
Second, one dramatic difference between the two books is that some of the male actors you write about are still household names, like Gable and Cagney, while others less famous like Fredric March still had valuable post-code careers. The women like Shearer, Dvorak, etc. almost disappeared from the screen following the code. Was this a trend? And if so, was it due to the (to put it crudely) shorter shelf life of actresses? The public's inwillingness to accept the changes in their personalities? Something else?
One important difference that I noted between the two books was that the first was more about the women and their films, while the second spent more time on the social issues that surrounded the pre-code era. To some degree that makes sense, as some of the issues (WWI, the Depression) were likely felt more keenly by men than women.
So my question is how you feel that those male-centric issues affected the parts available to women? To what extent was the war a factor in the liberation of women in films? Why did we not see pressure for a loosening of the strictures on women in the post-WWII era?
Second, one dramatic difference between the two books is that some of the male actors you write about are still household names, like Gable and Cagney, while others less famous like Fredric March still had valuable post-code careers. The women like Shearer, Dvorak, etc. almost disappeared from the screen following the code. Was this a trend? And if so, was it due to the (to put it crudely) shorter shelf life of actresses? The public's inwillingness to accept the changes in their personalities? Something else?
Jondaris -- about the two books. The way I see it, COMPLICATED WOMEN is a book of advocacy, while DANGEROUS MEN is a book of criticism. I like both books for different reasons. Basically, CW is a book about pre-Code women, while DM is about the entire pre-Code era except for the women's movies, so DM covers more. It's better written -- I wrote CW a little too quickly and see sentences I'd like to change. DM was done to my satisfaction. It's more extensively researched. It's also about 8,000 words longer, and I could change something about CW, I'd like it to be about that much longer.
On the other hand, in CW I was able to do something that I didn't quite pull off in DM, which is to give the book the illusion of narrative. I mean, basically I'm taking an amorphous glop of movies and writing about them, but in CW I was able to shape the material in such a way that it felt like there was a story. Also, because it's a work of advocacy, there's a lot of velocity behind it. I really wanted to get that information out, and once I had a publishing deal, I felt a real responsibility to do right by people like Shearer and Hopkins and Kay Francis and Ann Harding, because if I blew it, it wasn't as though there were going to be more books coming out. So all that gives the book it's own thing.
Anyway, so that's me reviewing my two books.
Feaito -- As for TEMPLE DRAKE -- I haven't seen the 1961 SANCTUARY, but TEMPLE DRAKE had to be better, given the restrictions on 1961 cinema. It's very creepy, and Hopkins is great in it.
DESIGN FOR LIVING is one of the most risque of the pre-Codes. It's one of the many but perhaps the best of the many pre-Code examinations of marriage and morality. The funny thing is movies were never more concerned with morality than during the pre-Code era. During the Code, there was little moral questioning because morality was understood to be a fixed entity.
JDB1 -- When I saw WATERLOO BRIDGE for the first time, at the Turner archive, I was determined that people should find out about that movie and that performance. Mae Clarke was probably the least lucky actress of that time -- plagued by accidents, breakdowns, and a misbegotten haircut circa 1933. But she was also plagued by film history, going down into legend as a grapefruit in the face while her best performance was tied up in a knot of litigation for over 60 yeas.
On the other hand, in CW I was able to do something that I didn't quite pull off in DM, which is to give the book the illusion of narrative. I mean, basically I'm taking an amorphous glop of movies and writing about them, but in CW I was able to shape the material in such a way that it felt like there was a story. Also, because it's a work of advocacy, there's a lot of velocity behind it. I really wanted to get that information out, and once I had a publishing deal, I felt a real responsibility to do right by people like Shearer and Hopkins and Kay Francis and Ann Harding, because if I blew it, it wasn't as though there were going to be more books coming out. So all that gives the book it's own thing.
Anyway, so that's me reviewing my two books.
Feaito -- As for TEMPLE DRAKE -- I haven't seen the 1961 SANCTUARY, but TEMPLE DRAKE had to be better, given the restrictions on 1961 cinema. It's very creepy, and Hopkins is great in it.
DESIGN FOR LIVING is one of the most risque of the pre-Codes. It's one of the many but perhaps the best of the many pre-Code examinations of marriage and morality. The funny thing is movies were never more concerned with morality than during the pre-Code era. During the Code, there was little moral questioning because morality was understood to be a fixed entity.
JDB1 -- When I saw WATERLOO BRIDGE for the first time, at the Turner archive, I was determined that people should find out about that movie and that performance. Mae Clarke was probably the least lucky actress of that time -- plagued by accidents, breakdowns, and a misbegotten haircut circa 1933. But she was also plagued by film history, going down into legend as a grapefruit in the face while her best performance was tied up in a knot of litigation for over 60 yeas.
-
pilgrimsoul
- Posts: 10
- Joined: October 15th, 2007, 11:00 am
Hi Mick,
Thanks for coming back for more today of this experience of being peppered with questions by us!
Could you please talk about the persistence of local censorship boards in the U.S. after 1934? Where were they concentrated?
Were there any venues where films that were not given the Production Code seal of approval could be seen?
Were there scenes in studio films that would be acceptable in countries outside of the U.S. but that were cut for American audiences?
Thanks for coming back for more today of this experience of being peppered with questions by us!
Could you please talk about the persistence of local censorship boards in the U.S. after 1934? Where were they concentrated?
Were there any venues where films that were not given the Production Code seal of approval could be seen?
Were there scenes in studio films that would be acceptable in countries outside of the U.S. but that were cut for American audiences?
-
SSO Admins
- Administrator
- Posts: 810
- Joined: April 5th, 2007, 7:27 pm
- Contact:
Here's another person that likes "Design for Living." I prefer it to "Trouble in Paradise."
I'm a fan of horror movies, and I am always amused by the credit list for "The Mummy," in which some poor guy is listed as being the "Saxon Warrior" when his scene was cut out of the film because all the reincarnation scenes had to go. Was that because of the desire to avoid controversy, or to speed the film up.
How controversial was "The Old Dark House" when it first came out in 1932? And did "Island of Lost Souls" kick up much fuss around that time as well? What, next to "Freaks" was the most controversial horror film of the pre-Code era?
I'm a fan of horror movies, and I am always amused by the credit list for "The Mummy," in which some poor guy is listed as being the "Saxon Warrior" when his scene was cut out of the film because all the reincarnation scenes had to go. Was that because of the desire to avoid controversy, or to speed the film up.
How controversial was "The Old Dark House" when it first came out in 1932? And did "Island of Lost Souls" kick up much fuss around that time as well? What, next to "Freaks" was the most controversial horror film of the pre-Code era?