Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

truck. In

in an alley and later in the episode having to do with the both instances, the brutality and violence are particularly spectacular and dramatized in unacceptable length and detail. The action of the boys attacking appears to be excessively brutal both in quantity and quality of detail. Specifically, we have in mind the action of the two boys holding against the wall while a third one beats him. The staging of this action should be done more by suggestion than by actually photographing, and specifically, there should be no kicking or kneeing.

If the Production Code Administration feels that in a certain film there is an excessive amount of violence and brutality or an excessive amount of sex suggestiveness, it is possible for them to withhold their seal if the producer is a signatory member of the association. If a signatory member of the association proceeds to release a film that has not been approved by the Production Code Administration, he is liable to a fine of $25,000.

In the last 15 years, there have been only 2 films produced by major companies that did not receive the seal of approval from the Motion Picture Production Code. There have also been a number of foreign films submitted to the Code Administration which have been refused a seal. One of these pictures was an independently produced film called The Moon Is Blue and one was the picture produced by one of the major studios, RKO, called The French Line. Both of these films were released without the seal of approval. In the case of The Moon Is Blue, neither the producer nor the distributing company was then a member of the association. Consequently, they were not subject to the $25,000 fine. In the case of The French Line, the fine was never assessed against the producer. However, when the film was subsequently brought into line with the code, the violation was overlooked. Mr. Shurlock indicated that the following reasons should be underlined as causative factors in the apparent increase in violence, brutality, and sadism in motion-picture films:

(1) The reason that some of this violence is being objected to is that it no longer appears in the old-type western picture, but has been brought up to date into a type of picture in which the characters are more readily recognizable and identifiable. In the standard westerns there is an aura of the fairytale about the portrayal that does not bring an audience into direct identification. However, when this type of story is told in a modern setting, the violence and brutality seem to affect the public more strongly.

(2) There seems to be on the part of the public a greater resentment against violence because, unfortunately, there have been recently fewer of the old-style family type of picture. That is, pictures of a violent nature are not increasing in number; however, fewer of the domestic comedies and pictures completely divorced from violence have been produced, so that when the family goes to the movies they see during the course of the year a greater proportion of violent pictures than they may have done previously.32

Referring to television, Mr. Shurlock also felt that a family which has sat through a television play from 5 to 6: 30 consisting of standard western violence, then put the children to bed, and gone to the theater, sat through a double bill consisting of Crashout and pictures of that type feel that they have had too much violence for one day. Mr. Shurlock stated further:

I think that they take out their resentment on the movies which are not necessarily any more violent than the previous shows because they have to pay for the movies.

Shurlock, Geoffrey, statement in hearings before the Subcommittee To Investigate Juvenile Delinquency, Motion Pictures, U. S. Senate, held on June 17, 1955, pp. 190-191.

Mr. Shurlock did admit, however, that the probability existed that the children might not be put to bed and that they also might see the twin bill and be exposed to many scenes of violence in one evening. In discussing the connection of the Motion Picture Production Code with foreign countries and films produced by them, Mr. Shurlock stated that occasionally a foreign producer would like to get his picture released in the United States and that there is nothing to prevent him from releasing the picture without the seal of approval. Many times, however, the foreign producer would like to obtain the services of one of the major releasing companies which require the seal of approval before they will handle the picture. In that case, the producer sends, or brings, the film to the Code Administration and asks that it be reviewed to determine whether or not it conforms with the code; and if he is granted the seal, this enables him to ask a major releasing company to handle the picture.. Many foreign films of the objectionable type, however, play in the so-called art houses, i. e., a limited number of theaters. Therefore, the producers of these films do not need the seal of approval because of their limited play and their limited audiences. This, in part, may account for the relative freedom in sexually suggestive scenes which have come under much criticism from the public. The producers of these films know that the content centers on sex exploitation and they know they cannot conceivably get the Production Code seal of approval.

There actually is no relationship between the Production Code Administration and the exhibiting houses or the theater owners themselves. The theater owners, through their organizations, Theater Owners of America and the Allied States Association of Motion Picture Exhibitors, do not require the seal of approval as a prerequisite for the showing of pictures in their particular movie houses. Because of a monopoly suit, the Government ordered divorcement of the producing and distributing companies from the theaters which they owned. Thus, the Motion Picture Association of America, which is a combination of both producing and releasing companies, no longer owns its own theaters. The result is that there is no working agreement in regard to requiring a seal of approval on the part of the theater owners at the present time.

The Production Code Administration is financed autonomously by fees paid by the individual producers for viewing the motion picture. The Code Administration does not receive any money from the parent association, that is the Motion Picture Association of America, and the fees are made out to the Production Code Administration. The Production Code has its own accounting system, all of which is under the control of an auditor in New York. This system was set up originally because a great many of the individuals submitting their pictures were not members of the association, and it was thought better that the code staff operate entirely as an autonomous association, not financed by the major companies. In that way the independent producer might think that he was dealing with an organization which was not controlled by the major producers. This system was developed in the early days of motion-picture making. However, in recent years it has become less important but the system still persists.

The Production Code was written and adopted in 1930. It was not, however, until 1934 that the successful method of implementing the

code was worked out. The method is the granting of the certificate of approval and the agreement on the part of the producers and distributors not to handle a picture that did not bear the certificate of approval. Up until that time, there had been no such definite sanction and this, according to Mr. Shurlock, is what makes the code work.

In the course of reviewing a film script and film for the seal of approval, two members of the code staff always review the finished film, although sections of the sound track may not have been "dubbed” in as in the final production. It is mandatory upon the producer to submit the finished picture to the code staff before the seal is given and when the final letter is written granting the seal of approval on the script, a paragraph is added which reads:

You understand, of course, our final opinion will be based upon the finished picture.

The Motion Picture Production Code can be amended from time to time. Whenever the industry generally and the board of directors in particular feel that certain amendments are advisable, they assemble the board of directors and approve such amendments which are then put into the code.

ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE MOTION PICTURE PRODUCTION CODE

The motion pictures discussed in this section were chosen for viewing by the subcommittee staff from lists provided by the Production Code Administration, and from official reviews printed by the industry press. All of the pictures under consideration were recent releases. The following list of 146 motion pictures passed through the Production Code Administration from January 1 to June 1, 1955. The files containing the correspondence between the various producers and the staff of the production code were studied for those pictures marked by asterisks.

Feature pictures approved by Production Code Administration, Jan. 1-June 1,

1955

Producing Company

Abbott and Costello Meet the Mummy---- Universal-International.

Title

[blocks in formation]

Feature pictures approved by Production Code Administration, Jan. 1-June 1, 1955-Continued

[blocks in formation]

Davy Crockett, King of the Wild Frontier. Walt Disney Productions.

*The Deadly Game__

[blocks in formation]

*Dial Red O___
*Double Jeopardy-
*Duel on the Mississippi.
The Eternal Sea..
*Five Against the House..
Flame of Africa____
*A Foreign Adventure_.
Francis in the Navy.
*The French Line_.
*Fury in Paradise_

Gentlemen Marry Brunettes-
The Girl Rush_.

*The Green Scarf---

*The Gun That Won the West.. A Handful of Clouds____ Hangover

Hit the Deck_

*House of Bamboo__

*I Cover the Underworld....

*I Died a Thousand Times_
*Illegal-----

Innocents in Paris..
An Inspector Calls.
Interrupted Melody.
Invitation to the Dance__
Jail Busters__.

*The Kentuckian_.

*Kentucky Rifle.

*The Killer's Kiss-. King Dinosaur_. The King's Thief. *Kiss Me DeadlyKiss of Fire---.

Lady and the Tramp.. *Las Vegas Shakedown_ *The Last Command_ *A Life at Stake__

*The Lock and the Key-. *The Lonesome Trail_

*Lord of the Jungle_

Love Is a Many Splendored Thing.

Love Me or Leave Me____

Lovers, Happy Lovers..

The McConnell Story.

The Magnificent Matador*Mambo...

*The Marauders_.

Marty-

Mister Roberts_ *Moonfleet..

*Murder in Villa Capri--.

My Sister Eileen__ *The Naked Dawn_. *The Night Holds Terror_

*The Night of the Hunter_.

Hammer.

Camden Productions, Inc.

Paramount Pictures Corp.
Clover Productions.
Allied Artists.

Republic Productions, Inc.
Clover Productions.

Republic Productions, Inc.

Dayle Productions.

Springbok Pictures (Pty), Ltd.
Republic Productions, Inc.
Universal-International.
RKO Radio Pictures, Inc.
Howard Coldren
Russfield-Voyager.
Independent Artists.
London Films.

Clover Productions.
Warner Bros.

Burt Kaiser Productions.
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.
20th Century-Fox.

Republic Productions, Inc.
Warner Bros.

[blocks in formation]

Allied Artists.

James Productions, Inc.

Howco Productions.

Menotaur Productions, Inc.
Zimgor.

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.

Parklane Productions.

Universal-International.

Walt Disney Productions.
William F. Broidy.

Republic Productions, Inc.
Telecraft Productions, Inc.
Batjac.

L & B Productions.
Allied Artists.

20th Century-Fox.
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.

Paul Graetz.
Warner Bros.

National Pictures Corp.

Ponti-DeLaurentis.

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.

Steven Productions.
Warner Bros.

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.

Burton Pictures Production, Inc. Columbia Pictures Corp.

Josef Shaftel Co.

Andrew Stone.

Paul Gregory Productions, Inc.

Feature pictures approved by Production Code Administration, Jan. 1–June 1, 1955-Continued

Title

*Not as a Stranger_

Oklahoma___

*One Desire___.

Pearl of the South Pacific__-

The Private War of Major Benson__.

*The Purple Mask.

The Purple Plain__. *The Queen Bee*Rebound__

The River Changes. *The Road to Denver *Santa Fe Passage.. *The Scarlet Coat_. The Sea Chase___ *The Seven Year Itch. *Secret Venture___ The Shrike__ Simba___

Sir Walter Raleigh. *Soldier of Fortune_ *Son of Sinbad__. Special Delivery_ Spy Chasers__

*Strange Lady in Town__.
*Strange Love_-_-
*Target Zero__

*Teen-Age Crime Wave....
*That Lady--

There's Always Tomorrow.

*They Were So Young-.

This Island Earth_

*Tight Spot.......

*To Catch a Thief.

To Hell and Back. Top of the World.. *The Town Tamer_.

[blocks in formation]

Producing Company

Stanley Kramer Productions. Rodgers & Hammerstein Pictures, Inc.

Universal-International.

Filmcrest Productions, Inc.

Universal-International.

Do.

Pinewood Films.

Columbia Pictures Corp.
Frankovich.

Warner Bros.

Republic Productions, Inc.
Do.

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.
Warner Bros.

20th Century-Fox.

Republic Productions, Inc.
Universal-International.
J. Arthur Rank.
20th Century-Fox.
Do.

RKO-Radio Pictures, Inc.
N. Peter Rathvon.
Allied Artists.
Warner Bros.

N-A-C Productions.
Warner Bros.

Clover Productions.
Atlanta Films, Ltd.
Universal-International.
Corona Films.

Universal-International.
Columbia Pictures Corp.
Paramount Pictures Corp.
Universal-International.

Landmark Productions, Inc.

Samuel Goldwyn, Jr. (Formosa
Productions).

Republic Productions, Inc.
Lux-Ponti-DeLaurentis.

Paramount Pictures Corp.
20th Century-Fox.

Jarville Studios.

Anglo-Allied Pictures, Inc.
Allied Artists.

Paramount Pictures Corp.

Feature pictures reviewed but not yet approved by the PCA, Jan. 1-June 1, 1955

[blocks in formation]
« ZurückWeiter »