Its no secret that I am a huge fan of classic film. If you're a regular reader (which I'm sure there are maybe three of you), you'll remember my love letters to "Pre-Code" Hollywood and to the incomparable Barbara Stanwyck.
But this begs the question: Lauren, why on earth is someone your age obsessed with these crappy old movies?
First of all, if any of you ever have the word "crappy" and "old movies" in the same sentence I will cut you.
Secondly, this is a question that is not simply a "just because they're awesome" sort of answer. Don't worry, I won't make this a long drawn out post...at least I'll try.
As with many of those who love old movies, my first one was The Wizard of Oz. I remember lusting after Dorthy's red slippers, and being more scared of those damn monkeys than the Wicked Witch. Following that was (and still is) one of my all time favourite horse movies: National Velvet. From there, my love of old movies sort of faded out for a while. If it wasn't Disney, then I most likely didn't watch it...sometimes that's still the case but I digress.
After my mom died I was seeking anything to help me escape, that need for escaping became more prevalent after I was molested. I yearned for some sort of way to get away...but without leaving my house. Books helped enormously but sometimes I needed more. I needed to see something; even my minds eye allowing myself to become so immersed within the pages of a novel that I could see, smell and feel what the character was feeling wasn't enough sometimes. I needed to be able to see the character's faces without closing my eyes. To see their plight and accompany them on this journey that they've chosen or are obligated to go on.
It started with Audrey, and ends with Stanwyck.
I first saw Breakfast at Tiffany's when I was about sixteen years old; I'll admit the only thing I found really awesome about it at the time was the fabulous wardrobe...I've been a fan of Hubert de Givenchy ever since. Around a year or so later...I pull out Tiffany's again and watch it with renewed appreciation. I see it through a very different set of eyes: I see a girl much like myself...someone I can identify with (minus being a call girl); I see Holly's pain, her longing to be loved but so terrified of it that she's convinced herself that she doesn't need it. A desire for wealth that is nearly insatiable because she grew up with nothing, and was most likely forced to marry a man much older than her so she could survive. Survive. Wasn't that what I felt like I was doing? I had what Oprah calls an "Aha" moment, a moment when you realize that this could be what you've been looking for: a means of escape. I set out on a quest to own every single Audrey Hepburn movie in existence.
Well maybe not EVERY single one...some of them are hella expensive because they're rare and hard to get so the people that have them feel justified in charging $49.99 for a DVD that probably cost about $15 to make. But I digress.
My renewed affection for Audrey expanded from Tiffany's to Tara. Yes boys and girls I"m talking of Gone with the Wind, now I know she'd kill me if I didn't credit my friend Lydia for introducing me to this wonderful movie; though I must admit...when I saw that it was in three VHS tapes I was a little bit unnerved to say the least. I hardly recognized the run time once the movie started, and it truly is a spectacular film.
From Tara we proceed to Princess Grace, that same week I was with Lydia she also made me...I mean suggested that we watch...Rear Window. To this day I firmly believe that next to Alan Arkin jumping out at Audrey Hepburn in Wait Until Dark, the scene where Lisa goes into the murderers apartment is by far one of the scariest scenes ever. That movie introduced me to the beauty and elegance that is Grace Kelly and opened so many more doors on my journey through the many vaults of classic cinema. I began to discover many other wonderful figures of classic film: Gregory Peck, Greer Garson, Cary Grant, Ingrid Bergman, Humphrey Bogart, Jimmy Stewart, Peter O'Toole, Deborah Kerr, Joan Crawford, Clark Gable, Gary Cooper, Paul Newman, Norma Shearer, John Wayne, Maureen O'Hara, Lauren Bacall, Elizabeth Taylor, and Rita Hayworth.
Perhaps the film that really opened my eyes, and engraved the love and appreciation of classic film into my being was Rita Hayworth's best known film Gilda.
The movie itself is a little complicated for some, but not for me. I was sucked in from the moment Glenn Ford spoke his opening line to the very last scene. The tension and eroticism in this film is spectacular, they truly don't make them like they used to anymore. I mean if you just watch, every single movement that Rita Hayworth makes oozes with sexuality and everything that is essential to a femme fatale; Glenn Ford is brilliant as the masochistic and tormented Johnny Ferral...I just love everything about this movie. It is everything that a Noir should be. Don't worry, I'll be defining Film Noir in a later post...I know, y'all are just so excited.
From Rita, came other notable femme fatales: Bette Davis, Gene Tierney, Ava Gardner, and, my film icon, Barbara Stanwyck.
I discovered Hitchcock, Capra, Wyler, Ford, and Wilder; I fell even deeper into obsession with Judy and Barbra after seeing them in their most beloved films. I developed an insatiable thirst for knowledge about the films and their stars, and the time periods in which they were made.
I went so far as to see which actors had offspring that were still alive and if their offspring had offspring who happened to be male so I could marry them and be a part of Hollywood royalty and my offspring would have amazing genetics. To answer your question, no I'm not seeking help on this matter. We all have our dreams.
This thirst for knowledge made me the top partner at "Scene It?" parties and trivial pursuit. I also faced some criticism and eye rolling from those who didn't understand why I loved these films so much. I don't care, I know why I love them and now I'm sharing that with you.
I won't go into another shpeel on Missy as I've already posted an entire column on her, but I will reveal why she is one of the reasons my love for classic film will stay with me for...well forever.
Many of you know my first Stany movie was The Lady Eve, those of you who haven't seen it or have only heard me talk about it must see it if we are to remain friends. It's an absolutely charming, funny and romantic movie; I can't think of any reason why anyone who likes going to movies wouldn't enjoy this film. It's a wonderful feel-good film, the kind you put in after a bad day and need a laugh or a warm fuzzy feeling. Barbara Stanwyck's performance in her work was never anything less than perfection. I don't think I can say that about any other actress from the past or today, not even the one's I respect. She gave everything she had to every character she played, and every movie I've seen her in I've always been enthralled by her performance even if the movie itself completely sucked. Barbara Stanwyck brings life to a character and vitality to any movie she was ever in.
In a nutshell, I suppose the short answer to why I love old movies so much is because they transport me to a time where things were just a little more elegant: the men were a tad more chivalrous, the women were classy (even if we didn't have many rights, we still looked damn good), and the movies were all about storytelling and less about special effects. The film focused on the story, its characters and the environment in which it was set; the results were very human stories with very human emotions. There were no flying blue things, or mechanical robots that shoot lazers and transformed into a turbo jet; it was just good, honest film making where the director worked with what he had and the actors had good worth ethic.
These films take me away for a while, they, much like the theatre, allow me to escape my world and everything in it; for two, three even four hours I can go on a journey and forget for a little while. I think we all could use a vacation from our lives once and a while, and its much easier to do than you think: All that's required is a DVD, maybe some popcorn, comfy clothes, and your imagination.
My request of you dear reader is if you've never seen a film like the one's I've mentioned, is to just give it a chance. I can almost guarantee that there is at least one that you will treasure and love for years to come. If you can't think of any or are unsure as to what you may like, well I'm more than willing to offer suggestions.
Showing posts with label classic hollywood. Show all posts
Showing posts with label classic hollywood. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Pre-Code: Boobies, drugs, violence and more!
I love it when I read an article with a catchy title, and unless you're not a curious person you've most likely done exactly what I wanted you to do: Click on the link.
When most people think of Classic Hollywood films, they automatically name off the same ones; I've come to title these as "the basics:" The Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind, Breakfast at Tiffany's, The Sound of Music, Miracle on 34th Street and It's a Wonderful Life. Don't get me wrong, these are all fantastic films but they're a bit too...clean for me. The boy always gets the girl or there's always a happy ending...the heroine learns her lesson...blah blah blah. I mean that's good and all, but I really just want to see a little more than just your basic package.
You can take that last phrase any way you please.
I always thought that Classic Film was pretty conservative, life was all gay and nobody ever suffered; that's the life that some films of that era portrayed. At least from 1934 on. The films that most of us see from the classic era followed a very strict production code called The Motion Picture Production Code, or "Hays Code" after William Harrison Hays. So what about the films prior to 1934? That my dear friends is an era that has come to be known as Pre-Code Hollywood; an era where provocative filmaking was champion.
Pre-Code Hollywood refers to the era in the American film industry between the introduction of sound in the late 1920s to 1934. Although the Code was adopted in 1930, oversight was poor and it did not become rigorously enforced until July 1, 1934. Before that date, movie content was restricted more by local laws, negotiations between the Studio Relations Committee and the major studios, and popular opinion than strict adherence to the Hays Code, which was often ignored by Hollywood filmmakers. As a result, films in the late 1920s and early 1930s included sexual innuendo (it was far from subtle, in some cases it was down right blatant), references to homosexuality (which was just outrageous...we all know that gays didn't show up until that whole AIDS thing), miscegenation (inter-racial relationships and marriages were frowned upon and you could face jail time), illegal drug use, infidelity, abortion and intense violence. From this era came the infamous gangster films and strong women-dominated films; Along with featuring stronger female characters, films examined female subject matters that were not revisited until much later in Hollywood history. Nefarious characters were seen to profit from their deeds, in some cases without significant repercussions, and drug use was a topic of several films. The bad guys didn't always get what they deserved and often times the films were a testament to how people really behaved, felt, and what was really going on in America at the time. Beginning in late 1933, and escalating throughout the first half of 1934, American Catholics launched a campaign against what they deemed the immorality of American cinema. This, plus a potential government takeover of film censorship and social research seeming to indicate that so-called "bad" movies could promote bad behavior, was enough pressure to force the studios to capitulate to greater oversight.
Leave it to the Catholics to take away all our fun.
Anyway in 1929, lay Catholic Martin Quigley, editor of the Motion Picture Herald, a prominent trade paper, and Jesuit priest Father Daniel A. Lord, created a code of standards, and submitted it to the studios. Lord's concerns centered on the effects sound film had on children, whom he considered especially susceptible to their allure. Several studio heads, including Irving Thalberg of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM), met with Lord and Quigley in February 1930. After some revisions, they agreed to the stipulations of the Code. One of the main motivating factors in adopting the Code was to avoid direct government intervention. It was the responsibility of the SRC headed by Colonel Jason S. Joy to supervise film production and advise the studios when changes or cuts were required.
The Code was divided into two parts. The first was a set of "general principles" which mostly concerned morality. The second was a set of "particular applications" which was an exacting list of items that could not be depicted. Some restrictions, such as the ban on homosexuality or the use of specific curse words, were never directly mentioned but were assumed to be understood without clear demarcation. Miscegenation, better known as the mixing of the races, was forbidden. It also stated that the notion of an "adults-only policy" would be a dubious, ineffective strategy that would be difficult to enforce. However, it did allow that "maturer minds may easily understand and accept without harm subject matter in plots which does younger people positive harm." If children were supervised and the events implied elliptically, the code allowed "the possibility of a cinematically inspired thought crime."
The Code sought not only to determine what could be portrayed on screen, but also to promote traditional values. Sexual relations outside of marriage could not be portrayed as attractive and beautiful, presented in a way that might arouse passion, nor be made to seem right and permissible. All criminal action had to be punished, and neither the crime nor the criminal could elicit sympathy from the audience. Authority figures had to be treated respectfully, and the clergy could not be portrayed as comic characters or villains. Under some circumstances, politicians, police officers and judges could be villains, as long as it was clear they were the exception to the rule. The entire document contained Catholic undertones and stated that art must be handled carefully because it could be "morally evil in its effects" and because its "deep moral significance" was unquestionable. The Catholic influence on the Code was initially decided to be kept secret. A recurring theme was "throughout, the audience feels sure that evil is wrong and good is right." The Code also contained an addendum commonly referred to as the Advertising Code, which regulated advertising copy and imagery.
Can you see why they were lax in enforcing it for so long? I mean really..."art must be handled carefully because it could be "morally evil in its effects" and because its "deep moral significance" was unquestionable."
Screw that.
And they did. For almost fourteen years they just sort of forgot about it. On February 19, 1930, Variety published the entire contents of the Code and predicted that state film censorship boards would soon become obsolete. However, the men obligated to enforce the code, Jason Joy, who was the head of the Committee until 1932, and his successor, Dr. James Wingate, were generally ineffective. The very first film the office reviewed, The Blue Angel (Marlene Dietrich's claim to American stardom and the first German sound film), which was passed by Joy without revision, was considered indecent by a California censor. Although there were several instances where Joy negotiated cuts from films, and there were indeed definite — albeit loose — constraints, a significant amount of lurid material made it to the screen. Joy had to review 500 films a year using a small staff and little power. The Hays office did not have the authority to order studios to remove material from a film in 1930, but instead worked by reasoning and sometimes pleading with them. Complicating matters, the appeals process ultimately put the responsibility for making the final decision in the hands of the studios themselves. How effective.
One obvious factor in ignoring the Code was the fact that some found such censorship prudish, due to the libertine social attitudes of the 1920s and early 1930s. When the Code was announced The Nation, a liberal periodical, attacked it. The publication stated that if crime were never presented in a sympathetic light, then, taken literally, "law" and "justice" would become the same. Therefore, events such as the Boston Tea Party could not be portrayed. And if clergy were always to be presented positively, then hypocrisy could not be examined either. The Outlook agreed and unlike Variety, predicted from the beginning that the Code would be difficult to enforce. Additionally, the Great Depression of the 1930s led many studios to seek income by any way possible. As films containing racy and violent content resulted in high ticket sales, it seemed reasonable to continue producing such films. Soon, the flouting of the code became an open secret. In 1931, the Hollywood Reporter mocked the code, and Variety followed suit in 1933. In the same year as the Variety article, a noted screenwriter stated that "the Hays moral code is not even a joke any more; it's just a memory."
I'm sure the Catholics and supporters of the Code just loved that.
Although the liberalization of sexuality in American film had increased during the entire 1920s, the Pre-Code era is either dated to the start of the sound film era, or more generally to March 1930 when the Hays Code was first written. It seemed as though this era of provocative film and free spirits was safe after all. Not so much...
By 1932, there was an increasing movement for government control. By mid-1934 when Cardinal Dougherty of Philadelphia called for a Catholic boycott of all films, and Raymond Cannon was privately preparing a congressional bill supported by both Democrats and Republicans which would introduce Government oversight, the studios decided they had had enough. They re-organized the enforcement procedures giving Hays and the recently appointed Joseph I. Breen, a devout Roman Catholic, head of the new Production Code Administration, greater control over censorship. The studios agreed to disband their appeals committee and to impose a $25,000 fine for producing, distributing, or exhibiting any film without PCA approval. Hays had originally hired Breen, who had worked in public relations, in 1930 to handle Production Code publicity, and the latter was popular among Catholics. Joy began working solely for Fox Studios, and Wingate had been bypassed in favor of Breen in December 1933. Hays became a functionary, while Breen handled the business of censoring films. Breen was a rabid anti-Semite, who was quoted as stating that Jews "are, probably, the scum of the earth." When Breen died in 1965, the trade magazine Variety stated, "More than any single individual, he shaped the moral stature of the American motion picture."
Its such a comfort to know that upstanding Christian men were at the head of this Code. Unfortunately some Pre-Code movies suffered irreparable damage from censorship after 1934. When studios attempted to re-issue films from the 1920s and early 1930s, they were forced to make extensive cuts. Films such as Animal Crackers (1930), Mata Hari (1931), Arrowsmith (1931), and A Farewell to Arms (1932) exist only in their censored versions. Many other films survived intact because they were too controversial to be re-released, such as The Maltese Falcon (1931) (which was remade a decade later), and consequently never had their master negatives edited. Some films were even destroyed, or too damaged to restore as a result of these "upstanding moral values." Who knows how many great films we lost as a result of this crusade.
A lot of people who aren't into Film History have no idea that this era even existed, for them film starts with the Golden Years (1939 to about 1960) and ends with the most recent box-office hit. There's nothing wrong with that, but I feel that this era deserves a lot of credit; it shouldn't be tossed to the side. It contained stars like Ruth Chatterton (seriously, check out Female. It's awesome) , and Warren William (the so-called "king of Pre-Code") who excelled during this period but are mostly forgotten today which is a shame. Starlets like Barbara Stanwyck (see my previous post for all the wonderful deets about her), Jean Harlow (my FAVOURITE blonde bombshell; she basically set the standard for every blonde-haired, curvy beauty to follow her), Norma Shearer (the Queen of MGM), Joan Blondell, Mae West (C'mon up and see me sometime), and Marlene Dietrich all got their start and thrived in the Pre-Code era. Famous leading men such as Humphrey Bogart, Clark Gable, James Cagney, and Edward G. Robinson wouldn't be the icons they are today had they not starred in some of the most violent gangster films of the time.
There are way too many of these films for me to even start to talk about my favourites. I will however share with you a wonderful collection of these films that our friends at TCM have compiled together and preserved for future generations to treasure and watch; they have been dubbed the Forbidden Hollywood Collection.
Volume 1 contains Baby Face, Red Headed Woman, and Waterloo Bridge, which would be redone years later starring Vivien Leigh. I own this collection and I have to say that it's one of my favourites, it sits right next to Volume 2. The second volume contains a goody bag of five films that include The Divorcee, A Free Soul, Female, Three on a Match, and Night Nurse.
Now I can't offer any insight on Volume 3 because I don't have it...yet.
I'm open to charitable gifts though.
When most people think of Classic Hollywood films, they automatically name off the same ones; I've come to title these as "the basics:" The Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind, Breakfast at Tiffany's, The Sound of Music, Miracle on 34th Street and It's a Wonderful Life. Don't get me wrong, these are all fantastic films but they're a bit too...clean for me. The boy always gets the girl or there's always a happy ending...the heroine learns her lesson...blah blah blah. I mean that's good and all, but I really just want to see a little more than just your basic package.
You can take that last phrase any way you please.
I always thought that Classic Film was pretty conservative, life was all gay and nobody ever suffered; that's the life that some films of that era portrayed. At least from 1934 on. The films that most of us see from the classic era followed a very strict production code called The Motion Picture Production Code, or "Hays Code" after William Harrison Hays. So what about the films prior to 1934? That my dear friends is an era that has come to be known as Pre-Code Hollywood; an era where provocative filmaking was champion.
Pre-Code Hollywood refers to the era in the American film industry between the introduction of sound in the late 1920s to 1934. Although the Code was adopted in 1930, oversight was poor and it did not become rigorously enforced until July 1, 1934. Before that date, movie content was restricted more by local laws, negotiations between the Studio Relations Committee and the major studios, and popular opinion than strict adherence to the Hays Code, which was often ignored by Hollywood filmmakers. As a result, films in the late 1920s and early 1930s included sexual innuendo (it was far from subtle, in some cases it was down right blatant), references to homosexuality (which was just outrageous...we all know that gays didn't show up until that whole AIDS thing), miscegenation (inter-racial relationships and marriages were frowned upon and you could face jail time), illegal drug use, infidelity, abortion and intense violence. From this era came the infamous gangster films and strong women-dominated films; Along with featuring stronger female characters, films examined female subject matters that were not revisited until much later in Hollywood history. Nefarious characters were seen to profit from their deeds, in some cases without significant repercussions, and drug use was a topic of several films. The bad guys didn't always get what they deserved and often times the films were a testament to how people really behaved, felt, and what was really going on in America at the time. Beginning in late 1933, and escalating throughout the first half of 1934, American Catholics launched a campaign against what they deemed the immorality of American cinema. This, plus a potential government takeover of film censorship and social research seeming to indicate that so-called "bad" movies could promote bad behavior, was enough pressure to force the studios to capitulate to greater oversight.
Leave it to the Catholics to take away all our fun.
Anyway in 1929, lay Catholic Martin Quigley, editor of the Motion Picture Herald, a prominent trade paper, and Jesuit priest Father Daniel A. Lord, created a code of standards, and submitted it to the studios. Lord's concerns centered on the effects sound film had on children, whom he considered especially susceptible to their allure. Several studio heads, including Irving Thalberg of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM), met with Lord and Quigley in February 1930. After some revisions, they agreed to the stipulations of the Code. One of the main motivating factors in adopting the Code was to avoid direct government intervention. It was the responsibility of the SRC headed by Colonel Jason S. Joy to supervise film production and advise the studios when changes or cuts were required.
The Code was divided into two parts. The first was a set of "general principles" which mostly concerned morality. The second was a set of "particular applications" which was an exacting list of items that could not be depicted. Some restrictions, such as the ban on homosexuality or the use of specific curse words, were never directly mentioned but were assumed to be understood without clear demarcation. Miscegenation, better known as the mixing of the races, was forbidden. It also stated that the notion of an "adults-only policy" would be a dubious, ineffective strategy that would be difficult to enforce. However, it did allow that "maturer minds may easily understand and accept without harm subject matter in plots which does younger people positive harm." If children were supervised and the events implied elliptically, the code allowed "the possibility of a cinematically inspired thought crime."
The Code sought not only to determine what could be portrayed on screen, but also to promote traditional values. Sexual relations outside of marriage could not be portrayed as attractive and beautiful, presented in a way that might arouse passion, nor be made to seem right and permissible. All criminal action had to be punished, and neither the crime nor the criminal could elicit sympathy from the audience. Authority figures had to be treated respectfully, and the clergy could not be portrayed as comic characters or villains. Under some circumstances, politicians, police officers and judges could be villains, as long as it was clear they were the exception to the rule. The entire document contained Catholic undertones and stated that art must be handled carefully because it could be "morally evil in its effects" and because its "deep moral significance" was unquestionable. The Catholic influence on the Code was initially decided to be kept secret. A recurring theme was "throughout, the audience feels sure that evil is wrong and good is right." The Code also contained an addendum commonly referred to as the Advertising Code, which regulated advertising copy and imagery.
Can you see why they were lax in enforcing it for so long? I mean really..."art must be handled carefully because it could be "morally evil in its effects" and because its "deep moral significance" was unquestionable."
Screw that.
And they did. For almost fourteen years they just sort of forgot about it. On February 19, 1930, Variety published the entire contents of the Code and predicted that state film censorship boards would soon become obsolete. However, the men obligated to enforce the code, Jason Joy, who was the head of the Committee until 1932, and his successor, Dr. James Wingate, were generally ineffective. The very first film the office reviewed, The Blue Angel (Marlene Dietrich's claim to American stardom and the first German sound film), which was passed by Joy without revision, was considered indecent by a California censor. Although there were several instances where Joy negotiated cuts from films, and there were indeed definite — albeit loose — constraints, a significant amount of lurid material made it to the screen. Joy had to review 500 films a year using a small staff and little power. The Hays office did not have the authority to order studios to remove material from a film in 1930, but instead worked by reasoning and sometimes pleading with them. Complicating matters, the appeals process ultimately put the responsibility for making the final decision in the hands of the studios themselves. How effective.
One obvious factor in ignoring the Code was the fact that some found such censorship prudish, due to the libertine social attitudes of the 1920s and early 1930s. When the Code was announced The Nation, a liberal periodical, attacked it. The publication stated that if crime were never presented in a sympathetic light, then, taken literally, "law" and "justice" would become the same. Therefore, events such as the Boston Tea Party could not be portrayed. And if clergy were always to be presented positively, then hypocrisy could not be examined either. The Outlook agreed and unlike Variety, predicted from the beginning that the Code would be difficult to enforce. Additionally, the Great Depression of the 1930s led many studios to seek income by any way possible. As films containing racy and violent content resulted in high ticket sales, it seemed reasonable to continue producing such films. Soon, the flouting of the code became an open secret. In 1931, the Hollywood Reporter mocked the code, and Variety followed suit in 1933. In the same year as the Variety article, a noted screenwriter stated that "the Hays moral code is not even a joke any more; it's just a memory."
I'm sure the Catholics and supporters of the Code just loved that.
Although the liberalization of sexuality in American film had increased during the entire 1920s, the Pre-Code era is either dated to the start of the sound film era, or more generally to March 1930 when the Hays Code was first written. It seemed as though this era of provocative film and free spirits was safe after all. Not so much...
By 1932, there was an increasing movement for government control. By mid-1934 when Cardinal Dougherty of Philadelphia called for a Catholic boycott of all films, and Raymond Cannon was privately preparing a congressional bill supported by both Democrats and Republicans which would introduce Government oversight, the studios decided they had had enough. They re-organized the enforcement procedures giving Hays and the recently appointed Joseph I. Breen, a devout Roman Catholic, head of the new Production Code Administration, greater control over censorship. The studios agreed to disband their appeals committee and to impose a $25,000 fine for producing, distributing, or exhibiting any film without PCA approval. Hays had originally hired Breen, who had worked in public relations, in 1930 to handle Production Code publicity, and the latter was popular among Catholics. Joy began working solely for Fox Studios, and Wingate had been bypassed in favor of Breen in December 1933. Hays became a functionary, while Breen handled the business of censoring films. Breen was a rabid anti-Semite, who was quoted as stating that Jews "are, probably, the scum of the earth." When Breen died in 1965, the trade magazine Variety stated, "More than any single individual, he shaped the moral stature of the American motion picture."
Its such a comfort to know that upstanding Christian men were at the head of this Code. Unfortunately some Pre-Code movies suffered irreparable damage from censorship after 1934. When studios attempted to re-issue films from the 1920s and early 1930s, they were forced to make extensive cuts. Films such as Animal Crackers (1930), Mata Hari (1931), Arrowsmith (1931), and A Farewell to Arms (1932) exist only in their censored versions. Many other films survived intact because they were too controversial to be re-released, such as The Maltese Falcon (1931) (which was remade a decade later), and consequently never had their master negatives edited. Some films were even destroyed, or too damaged to restore as a result of these "upstanding moral values." Who knows how many great films we lost as a result of this crusade.
A lot of people who aren't into Film History have no idea that this era even existed, for them film starts with the Golden Years (1939 to about 1960) and ends with the most recent box-office hit. There's nothing wrong with that, but I feel that this era deserves a lot of credit; it shouldn't be tossed to the side. It contained stars like Ruth Chatterton (seriously, check out Female. It's awesome) , and Warren William (the so-called "king of Pre-Code") who excelled during this period but are mostly forgotten today which is a shame. Starlets like Barbara Stanwyck (see my previous post for all the wonderful deets about her), Jean Harlow (my FAVOURITE blonde bombshell; she basically set the standard for every blonde-haired, curvy beauty to follow her), Norma Shearer (the Queen of MGM), Joan Blondell, Mae West (C'mon up and see me sometime), and Marlene Dietrich all got their start and thrived in the Pre-Code era. Famous leading men such as Humphrey Bogart, Clark Gable, James Cagney, and Edward G. Robinson wouldn't be the icons they are today had they not starred in some of the most violent gangster films of the time.
There are way too many of these films for me to even start to talk about my favourites. I will however share with you a wonderful collection of these films that our friends at TCM have compiled together and preserved for future generations to treasure and watch; they have been dubbed the Forbidden Hollywood Collection.
Volume 1 contains Baby Face, Red Headed Woman, and Waterloo Bridge, which would be redone years later starring Vivien Leigh. I own this collection and I have to say that it's one of my favourites, it sits right next to Volume 2. The second volume contains a goody bag of five films that include The Divorcee, A Free Soul, Female, Three on a Match, and Night Nurse.
Now I can't offer any insight on Volume 3 because I don't have it...yet.
I'm open to charitable gifts though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)